Your Freedom Lies in Monkeys

I have attended alot of conferences in my career. Although there are many types of conferences, the motivational ones are always interesting. You never walk away from these conferences fully satisfied but more with a slightly subdued hunger. This is not a bad thing by any means. Overeating at any conference can leave you bloated and with a headache. The key to any conference is to walk away with a few "nuggets" of wisdom with which to build on.

The scale you see at the top is one such nugget. The scale was developed by William Oncken, a consulting guru best known for his time management techniques and metaphorical monkeys. Centering around managers, Oncken's technique is to depict everyday issues and challenges as monkeys and show ways to remove them. The path to less stress and more time in your day to do YOUR REAL JOB is be rid of monkeys - especially those that are not yours. If you think about it, we all do this on a daily basis where we walk in the morning physched about our day and then are bombarded but OTHERS issues. As a manager you have a responsibility to those above and below you in the chain of command. So how do you be the best you can at your own job, while still supporting your staff, boss, and organizational needs?

The strategy with the depicted scale is to have the majority (if not all) of you staff performing above a #3. The more independent your staff is of your decisions or controls, the more time you have to spend on issues that you want to be engaged in. I added the arrows on the side to illustrate the key problems that managers face in moving up and down this scale.

1. Trust: Many managers do not inherently trust their staff to make the right decisions. They are micro-managers because of this fault and feel the need to be involved in all decisions, no matter their importance. The issue of trust is hard to overcome but highlights a larger problem. If you do not trust your staff to make the decisions necessary in their position, why do they exist! Not everyone needs a #1 employee but allowing your employees to feel empowered with some decision making is one solution to overcoming this issue of trust.



2. Self-Importance: A phenomena that my wife has actually coined, this is where individuals make themselves to be more important to a situation then they may need to be (or actually are). Many managers don't want staff making decisions simply because they like the control. There is a subtle difference here as trust implies you think your staff will not make the right decision, whereas self-importance means you view decision making as an issue of self-worth. The more decisions you make, the more self-worth you have. The logic is flawed and the issue of monkeys is even more prevelant as individuals with a high degree of self-importance often complain the most about having no time.

This scale works at all levels, even if you are in a subordinate role or at the bottom of the corporate ladder. DO NOT feel the need to be "yes" man(woman) and accept responsibility for everyone around you. DO work you feel you would be engaged in, and work with others to find common grounds on who takes responsiblity for issues on a daily basis. You will always a few monkeys on your back, but this scale provides a good check to remove many others before they turn into gorrillas. I was even told about an executive who has a monkey on his desk that he shifts to those walking in the door. This ensures you have a visual of issue at hand and that it is given to the appropriate person after the conversation finishes.

My 2 thoughts anyways......

Brinks Alarms: Beware of the Fuel Surcharge Tax

I like to inform consumers when I feel they are being wronged. A run-in with Brinks leads me to believe that I am not alone in my 2 thoughts....

I recently had a problem with my Brinks alarm. I was trying to test the system and realized I didn't have a live connection with the monitoring group. For those not familiar with the Brinks alarm system (or don't currently own an alarm that is monitored), your are expected by Brinks to "test" your alarm once a month. This is done by asking the system to send a signal to the central server to ensure the unit is performing correctly (verifying a live signal) and then sending a counter-signal back to the device to let the user know (with a loud beep) that a successful connection was made. After repeated tries, I decided to call Brinks to get help with this problem.

We purchased through Brinks because we wanted a reputable company. We were assured of their great technology and years of expertise in residential service. We were also assured of their no-hassle technical service should we have a problem with our system at any point. Imagine my surprise when I asked for a technician to come out and Brinks hesitated. They first asked if I had a digital phone. I told them I did but it was in place before I had the system put in (which I was told at the time wouldn't be a problem). They repeatedly stressed that their system has problems with digital phones (monitoring requires a connection via the telephone line). They (Brinks) wanted to let me know that a charge would be made if it the problem wasn't theirs. I told Brinks I didn't care as the phone was well in place before and the system had worked fine for months. What I also found out was technicians only work Mondays to Saturdays and only during work hours. With the exception of a Saturday visit, I would have to take time-off work to be home between the hours of either 9:00am - 12:00am or 1:00pm to 4:00pm. I booked a Friday knowing my wife would be home on one of her days off.

I called later that day to see how things went. My wife told me the technician had come and mentioned that Brinks was having several problems with their systems similar to ours. He ended up fixing the system but then asked my wife for a $5.00 fee to cover the fuel costs for the trip. She paid the fee but knew full well that I would have not endorsed such a cost.

I called Brinks yesterday to examine the plausibility of the cost. Here is Brinks arguments for charging the $5.00 fee:

• Its a Canadian Law to charge the $5.00 fuel surcharge.


• Its Brinks policy.


• Everyone is charged and has been charged since March of 2007.

Here are my arguments:

• Firstly, there is no such Canadian Law that asks all services calls for warranty approved work to be charged a $5.00 surcharge for fuel.


• The very meaning of the word "surcharge" implies this is a company policy to add an additional cost to its clients, not a Canadian Law demanding such a fee. Also, Brinks constantly referred to this $5.00 surcharge for fuel as a "Fuel Surcharge Tax", talk about trying to group words together to make the argument.


• The Protective Service Agreement that I signed with Brinks to enter into this arrangement in section 6. under "Repair Service" does not mention any such surcharge to warranty approved work. There is mention of acts of god, misuse, negligence, fire, but no mention of a surcharge that will accompany a visit where the system is not performing to its designed specifications.

In the end, the Service Call Manager (of course I had it elevated) gave me another number to call to get my credit of $5.00. He said that he would neither agree or disagree with me on this matter as he did not have the authority to change company policy. This in itself is an admission of error on the part of Brinks.

If anyone else has had similar challenges, the number to call is: 1-800-437-3611. They are only open Mon-Fri 8am to 5pm.

Private Power Benefits BC Hydro

For a time I worked at the Business Development Bank of Canada. Part of the mandate of this bank was to support the development of small to medium sized businesses. This is how this federal mandated bank maintained its stature in a world dominated by the fab five (RBC, BMO, TD, ScotiaBank, CIBC). In fact, the structure of the bank is such that directors from each of these banks make up a board that regulates how the BDC operates within Canada.

In addition to having good credit, strong liquidity, and a working capital ratio greater than 1; the BDC’s policy on lending meant that you could only provide capital to a business that was creating gainful employment for the constituents of Canada. How does this relate to BC Hydro? Over the course of my employment at BDC, we had the opportunity to finance several IPP’s (Independent Power Producers). These projects required extensive capital to build, but once operational, cost little to maintain (if memory serves me correctly, a battery operated fan was the extent of the complexity). The only challenge was to make sure the estimates of water flow were correct and did not exceed or recede the levels agreed to in the 99 year energy contracts with BC Hydro.

We didn’t finance any of them (the IPP’s). I thought my branch manager was crazy as a steady cash flow and a contract as good as the government would appeal to anyone. Anyone but the BDC! As I mentioned before, any business that we were financing had to provide some notion of gainful employment to the community. Unfortunately for IPP’s, the employment to project ratio consisted of the two very rich owners and one maintenance guy that came around once or twice a year for service.

A new angle on the debate beyond the fact that BC Hydro is looking for private sources of power is who this deal with IPP’s really benefits. According to a Simon Fraser University economist (link) no one benefits from IPP’s except BC Hydro. Aside from the fact that these are lucrative contracts, BC hydro is looking to save energy from public facilities so that they can be sold at a higher value on the open market (mainly the US). What this means is that we could potentially be paying more for local sources of energy contracted at higher prices while cheaper public facilities sell energy also at a premium to benefit only BC Hydro. There was another article in BC Business that provides a good background on private power (link). “The 2002 BC Energy Plan (revised in spring 2007) is transforming BC Hydro from a generator of publicly owned electricity to a purchaser of energy from private power producers.”

Call me crazy but doesn’t it make sense for us to conserve energy so that we infact conserve energy (as opposed to using surplus energy to turn a profit on the open market)??

My 2 thoughts anyways….

First NFL Trip

Football is an American pastime. It is also a reason to park your truck in a parking lot to have a BBQ, dance with a marching band called the Blue Thunder, and scream “sack the back” when your team is on defense. I was fortunate enough to enjoy my first football game (ever) in Seattle on Sunday 21, 2007.

A good friend of mine has been the root of my pestering since I moved to Vancouver. I had been asking him to join me in viewing a BC Lion’s game but our work schedules never seemed to coincide and I am not one to go to a game myself. Fortunately for me, he did me one better and asked if I would want to go to Seattle to see the Seahawks play the St. Louis Rams. Our trip started close to the border at the Best Western at 8:45am.

A bus had been chartered for the trip and had made one previous stop prior to picking us up. All told, 45 people were looking forward to seeing the Seahawks and those organizing the annual trip also did not disappoint. Coffee, doughnuts from Tim Hortons, chips, and candy were a plenty along with bottles of water and pop. Seattle is roughly a two-hour drive from Vancouver but roughly depends on border waits. With the dollar above parity with the US, the wait times coming back are the ones you have to consider. Traveling to the US was a breeze as buses are separated from regular vehicle and commercial traffic. The border guards boarded the bus and did a minor check of our passports and containers but nothing that delayed us more than about 10 minutes.

Qwest field is something of a marvel to see. Unlike its immediate counterpart Safeco Field, it is an open structure but with only the field exposed. The front end rises high with steel art on the outside and a giant led screen inside facing the field and allow those in the upper bowls to get a close up of the game. The large parkade the faces the off-ramps as you drive into town have huge pictures of the Seahawk player. Once is of the quarterback and the other couldn’t tell you not being a huge fan. To get to the field is a bit of a chore as you are asked to drive in a large circle through the mounds of people crossing at ever corner before you can make it to large parking lot fronting the stadium. The parking lot itself is a furry of activity as many have been camped out since the morning with trucks parked end-to-end, bbqs a blaze, and tvs hooked to portable satellites viewing multiple games in the league. I have never been witness to a real tail-gate party but can understand the appeal when you are amongst friends and those who love the sport.

The line up moved swiftly inside with some minor drops of rain from the sky. This did not bother me one bit as I was already started to feed from the buzz around me. As we made it through the gates I could hear the marching band “the blue thunder” start to make their way in from the parking lot through the front gates and position themselves on the stairs. I asked a Qwest field employee to take a picture of me and my buddy in front of the band only to realize after the picture was taken that this individual was legally blind!! Needless to say he took a great photo regardless of this minor handicap.

We proceeded to our seats but made a detour after seeing the many adorning fans wearing the Seahawks apparel. Call it novelty or simply fitting-in, but a couple of caps and some gifts for my family later and we were in our seats for the opening kick-off. I have to say that it feels great to shop in the states as I paid for everything with my Canadian MasterCard knowing I would get a deal. Our seats while in the upper bowl had a great view of the field and were sheltered from any rain that might decide to fall. The weather held up though and provided for an entertaining game.

The Seattle fans are die-hards and cheer for each and every play. The sounds is almost deafening and not being to anything larger then a concert (where everyone is chanting in unison) 50,000 fans is a bit hard to handle at first. The cheers are just as large as the “boos” and everyone around me seemed to know exactly who was carrying the ball at any given point in time. There is also no real downtime expect for between quarters and a small intermission. I say small because we went to do some additional shopping for family (greedy for the exchange rate) and we ended up missing a Seattle touchdown the first minute in the 3rd quarter. Final score for the game was 33-6.

The ride back was largely uneventful until we hit the 1 mile mark from the border. I faced this exact point before when you are asked to make the choice of going to the Peace or Pacific border crossing (Highway 99 or Highway 15 for Canadians). I was coming back from dropping my brother-in-law off in Portland where he is studying Chiropractics and ended up waiting 3 ½ hours starting 1 mile from the border with my wife and cousin. This time around the wait was only 2 ½ hours but wasn’t as bad considering I didn’t have to drive and was able to catch a nap on the way in.

Definitely a memorable trip.

My 2 thoughts anyways.

Enough with the Retirement Statistics

How often have you been to a workshop, seminar, or address from your respective company where they do the following exercise, "OK everyone who has been with the company for 0-5 years stand-up (about 10% of those in attendance stand up), OK everyone who has been with the company for 5-10 years stand up (about 30% of those in attendance stand), and so forth. The kicker comes when almost half of those in attendance stand up for the 20 to 30 years of service announcement demonstrating how many people could be leaving the organization in the next 5 to 10 years.

Like John Stossel from 20/20 would say, "Give me a break!". I have done this exercise for the 4oth time now and I find this pointless. We all get that large corporations are facings succession planning issues with close to half their workplace retiring in the next few years. The challenge - brain drain from the company and no one to pick up the pieces. So, the major question here is what we choose to do about this people "crunch". What we find is many companies are choosing to focus more on the stats because the alternatives are much to costly to pursue. Lets examine some options:

• Job Shadowing (Internal) - A good option as it promotes from hiring within which can build loyalty. Minimal training as far as corporate culture goes and hiring within the business unit means objectives of the organization are also easy to grasp. Now for the bad - the domino effect. Anyway you look at it, you now have a position to fill somewhere else within the organization. If that position is filled from within, you are forced to find someone for the other hole you have created. Given this, many employees will also be hesitant to pursue such an opportunity given that their current job may not be back filled essentially leaving them to pick up the additional work. This is because many employers do not want the hassle of bringing someone else in to back fill when the term associated with job shadowing is often 6 months or less.
• Job Shadowing (External) - This would follow a competition whereby the previous employee is asked to stay and transfer knowledge. A good option as it diffuses the domino effect. Outside "blood" to the organization can be beneficial in new ideas, best practices, and a new outlook given previous experience elsewhere. Also, by having the previous employee stay while the new recruit adjusts, others can see why that individual may have been chosen over others (especially inside the organization). The bad - costs associated with training. Most organizations, like any business, realize that it often easier to keep employees rather than train new ones. Assimilation within the company, buy-in to corporate values and philosophy, and understanding business unit objectives all take time and money to implement. External employees can also face hostility from others in the business unit, especially when entering a managerial role. Companies are still faced with costs associated with overlap between someone coming in and the current employee till residing in the position. This often effects how much knowledge a company can retain given the budget allowed.
• Hiring Retirees - Has many advantages as you can move forward with filling positions but you also have a new functional employee who can help the business unit and take on some of the workload. The challenge here is this often takes creating a new position and thereby adding to the budgetary woes of the corporation. This is also often "band-aid" solution as the retiree often will come back on their own terms and schedule. They may become more interested in their own work versus transferring knowledge to the business unit. The terms of their return need to by crystallized.
• Regular Hiring: What about the tried and true practice of simply hiring when someone leaves? No overlaps means no extra cost, right?. The problem here is, at least for many employers, the talent pool is quite shallow (pun intended). With the amount of choices out there and the hunger to replace the baby boomers, people have their pick of positions. The environment for hire has to also be as appealing as the job itself. Training plan, support network, capability with the business unit and organization. This means that is their is a lack of the previous details, many will leave soon after coming in. Why not, when the supply of jobs is great. This means more costs to the organization with having to go back to the hiring process.

As you can see, costs plays a major role in filling the voids within an organization. This is why is often easier to talk about the problems versus trying to resolve them. Unfortunately, many will not have an option of waiting it out before others in the organization leave do to increased workloads because of non-hires and morale issues. So lets stop with the "years of service exercise" and start talking about how we are going to combat the problem.

Calculating Value: An Art Not A Science

Calculating the net worth (value) of a company is often a fickle business. Companies like PriceWaterhouseCoopers and other large accounting firms have made a living off such valuations because they are often so difficult to calculate. Some compare this to nothing more than "crystal balling" or taking numbers from the air. Why should anyone argue with this when you read the latest business-related news? Take the recent eBay example (link) where executives have finally admitted that they overpaid for Skype (an Internet Telecoms Company) purchased by eBay over 2 years ago. The company made a offer of 4.1 billion, of which is now looks like they paid 1.4 billion too much. It is easy to criticize such a transaction when you are dealing with such large dollar values but let me try to demonstrate to complexity of such valuation and projecting future cash flow.

The complexity of projecting future cash flow can be as simple as the following example. Many of us have walked into a bank to ask for a mortgage on a new house we wish to purchase. I did so recently on my home I purchased in Surrey. Part of the calculations a bank uses is you annual income (your pay cheque), liquid assets (cash, or something that can be converted to cash relatively quickly - usually in less than 6 months - mutual funds, stocks, etc), hard assets (other homes), rolling stock (vehicles), and long term securities (GIC's, RRSPs). If the calculation were simple, the bank would simply add up the value of all these income deriving lines minus all you costs (debts) you would then have a straight forward net worth calculation. However, life is often never that simple.

The complexity even with obtaining a mortgage arises from the following where in finance the two things are often true: first a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow; and second (related) their is no way to guarantee the sensitivity of future markets. The first speaks to the buying power of money. This buying power is in its simplest form is a function of inflation. As inflation goes up, the value of goods you buy conversely rises (goods like houses). However, since your wage and income does not also go up with inflation (usually a function of a bargaining agreement or a contract), the amount of goods you can purchase with the same dollar you had yesterday goes down. This is why you often see the Bank of Canada often intervening in markets by raising interest rates. As our economy is based on borrowing money, the bank is essentially trying to curb spending (or borrowing money to spend) to reduce inflationary pressures within the country. The bank you are applying for a mortgage to also knows this and wants to ensure that you wages along with other goods will service (pay the loan) for the long haul when the value of that dollar is questionable. They essentially want a good cushion (along with someone with good credit). The second related concept to this is sensitivity. As no one knows exactly how the markets will fluctuate, we have to make an educated guess based on where our economy is going. Also known as speculation, this is how many people make money of the stock market or real estate (buying low to sell high = profit). To aid in this, the bank often discounts ("takes away") some the value of your assets to account for the loss of buying power as describe above. For example, you current assets maybe valued as following when applying for a mortgage: house (75% of appraised value), mutual funds (60% of current market value), vehicles (50% of current value), rental income from homes (50% of current income) and so forth. The higher the certainty that the value of a assets will retain that value (or go up) the higher the valuation for that assets. Cash in the bank would be valued at 100% as it is cash that is not affected by external market pressures. However, mutual funds are affected by stock fluctuations; real estate is affected by the supply and demand as well as affordability; and vehicles are affected by their age, usage, make, model etc. Unfortunately, a bank is the worst form of conservatism where your valuation comes second to their interest in giving you a favorable interest rate on your bank account.

As the above example shows, even simpler transactions can produce complications when trying to foresee into the future about what your dollar will be worth. Imagine trying to do this with a billion dollar company. And to demonstrate how much these valuations differ consider the following: With oil & gas companies for example, their valuation is looking to purchase is often a function of potential (estimated) oil & gas reserves; with a drug company like Pfizer, the valuation is tied up in research and the potential for a new better drug on the market; or a blue-chip company like Lockheed Martin, their valuation is in long-term contracts they have arranged to provide artillery to the US army. The real difference comes with those companies based on the Internet. Their are no hard assets (few buildings), often no real contracts, and no established stream of revenue (most are often in the start-up phase and are dependent on debt to get going). Even those that have been in the industry for some time (like Google) are still considered unpredictable given the rate at which technology has been evolving (a phenomena known as disruptive technology-automobile replaces horse, digital photography replaces film, etc). Google is considered the best search engine on the Internet (and valued at $600/share for it) but it could be replaced tomorrow with something better.

Finally, back to the central argument. eBay gambled on telecoms technology but didn't know how exactly to value the company. Revenues were only at $60 million but eBay paid 683 times too much. eBay was trying to value potential cash flows and that's where all rules went out of the window. The best experts have challenges trying to project future growth and often end up valuing the intrinsic value of the company (what is worth to the competition). In my experience when trying to value such companies you should keep two things in mind: your time horizon short given the technology life-cycle; and second create some sensitivity in the analysis. Even for the business cases I currently author, I will include a Net Present Value (or net worth) of the project at several different discount rates (6%,8%,10%). This illustrates the sensitivity of such cash flows to small fluctuations in the discount rate. The lower the rate, the more sure you are that the cash flows are going to stay the same. This conservative approach, unfortunately means that most projects don't get off the ground. As an organization though, you have understand what your objectives are for investments and what is an acceptable risk. For eBay, a company founded and based on the Internet, the risks tolerance is obviously much higher then there would be at a bank.

My 2 thoughts anyways...

I'm leaving..and I'm taking my football!

If you have been following the paper you have witnessed the jockeying in Alberta over a recent report on royalty rates. Issued by an an independent panel of experts, this report revealed that Alberta is missing out on billions of oil royalties and should be able to raise rates without effecting the industry. The industry is crying bullshit, as many including mammoth industry giants Encana, threaten to curb spending in the Alberta economy by up to $1 billion dollars. Alberta's premier is now asking everyone to simply "calm down" as they work towards a resolution, a knee jerk reaction to the oil-foundation of the Albertan economy.

This reminds me allot about the football games I used to play in with my friends. These games were purely recreational, but you wouldn't be able to tell by the way we argued for every single yard. A couple individuals, specifically, were often on opposite teams and represented the crown and defense for every argument ever made (depending who had the ball). The trump card in all of this we the fact that one of these individuals owned the football. When the argument would get to a certain level, this individual would say that he was leaving the field if he didn't get the call. "Oh, and by the way, that's my football and I'm taking that too." There was a always a few on his team that supported his argument (usually the receiver) but many could care less and actually just wanted to continue playing (with the opposition obviously opposing the call). Never mind that it only took several calls to get everyone together on a rotary dial phone (we didn't have the luxury of MSN or email). Dial to fast or didn't complete a full circle and you have to start all over. The call lasted 1 minute, but making the call took 2 minutes with all the mistakes. Anyways, most the time, the opposition would simply allow the call so we could continue playing rather then send someone else home to get their football or quit the game altogether.

The oil companies are performing a similar maneuver in the face of an unfavorable call. If the oil companies collectively represent my friend with the football; a few of his supporters represent the special interest groups that support him; and the rest of the players represent Albertans, you might as well be playing this scene at our old elementary school. Oil companies are threatening to pull out of the game and take the only thing that would keep the province going, money. They obviously have a few supporters in form of special interest groups but rest of people affected, Albertans, stand to benefit collectively on a larger scale. Investment into health care, roads, schools just to name a few. Alberta already has the distinction of the only province with no net debt or provincial tax, but services otherwise are still suffering. Simply drive the roads and you will understand.

So what's the solution. Lets visit us in our younger days on the field again.

1) Someone else buys a football: Firstly, no one will pitch-in for the cost. Second, if another is readily available their is no incentive to buy another. Speaks to diversifying available resources and the economy.

2) Have a neutral party call the plays: There was no such thing as a neutral party. Everyone wanted to play so being assigned to one team or another and arguing for the opposition is effectively suicide. Besides, the argument would still be there given the stake of the game and lack of a paid official that both parties have paid to be there (hey we could barely afford a second football).

3) We quit playing football: This would often happen as we went through fazes where we abused one sport for awhile and then would switch to another. Much like the up and downs in the market but here the difference is our dependence on fossil fuels. Again, this also speaks to diversifying the economy.

In the end, the outcome in Alberta is going to be similar to the outcome at our football games. Someone will make a concession or realize asking the only individual with the game ball to pullout is like asking everyone to go home without the satisfaction of a win. Time, energy, and effort was wasted and in the end everyone leaves empty handed. Everyone that is, expect the individual with the ball, who realizes the next time he calls, you will still show up to play.

My 2 thoughts anyways....

Low to Middle Income Hardest Hit in CDN Vehicle Prices

The globeandmail reported today that there is a class action lawsuit being launched against automakers and dealers for allegedly charging Canadians 25-35% higher for vehicles sold in Canada when compared to the US. Consumer groups are welcoming the lawsuit.

It is only now through the parity of the dollar that Canadians realize the glaring differences in vehicle prices between Canadian and US dealerships. The article doesn't mention any specific automaker other then Porsche within the article but its suffice to say that not everyone is driving a Porsche nor can they afford one. What about the average joe on a regular salary? I would argue that we are definitely a larger portion of vehicle sales per annum. I set out to find out how much of a difference there actually exists between vehicles here and across the border.

Assumptions:

• Growth since 2002 has averaged -1% in Canada. I assumed no growth in the current fiscal 2007 using 2006 stats from Statistics Canada.


• I used a 2004 study to understand the most popular vehicles purchased in Canada. I assumed this hasn't changed with the exception of Chevrolet that has discontinued the Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire, and Toyota that has discontinued the Echo. I substituted the Chevrolet Malibu and didn't place another Toyota vehicle as I already had a comparison.


• I also assumed that that the % of vehicles purchased by consumers in Canada by make will remain the same (a large assumption i know but they made the analysis easier given information I was able to obtain). I believe once you see the vehicles individuals were buying in 2004, you will see that those models are still quite popular today.

Findings: If Canadians was to continue to purchase vehicles based on the assumptions above, we would have have paid an extra $888 Million dollars between the vehicles in the table presented here. It is also important to note here that this represents only 11% of all vehicles sold in Canada.

The vehicles depicted here are priced an average of $20,586 in Canada while only $15,772 in the US. Honda and Mazda seem to be the worst offenders (Ford owns Mazda). With vehicles that are priced to attract the low to middle income, it is concerning to think that these automakers are pricing vehicles they way they have.

While many Canadians have realized this some time ago, others are only now starting to realize that the automakers have "pulled the hood over our eyes" (pun intended of course). This isn't small change either and both a public inquiry and a class action lawsuit are definitely warranted under the circumstances. Especially with "ethically" responsible manufacturers like Toyota is promote their One-Price policy. Consumers are now the wiser so beware.

My 2 thoughts......

(Again if you interested, let me know if you want me to share my figures via email)

I agree with Denzel.

There is a great scene in one of the best movies I have ever seen, Training Day starring a very bad-a$$ Denzel Washington. Ethan Hawke walks into the restaurant on his very first day on job with the narcotics division lead by Denzel. Denzel is reading the paper and ignores Ethan's questions for the first minute or so only to stare him when he doesn't get the hint.

"90% of what I read in this paper is bullsh!t. I read it because I like to be entertained. If you are not going to let me read the paper then you entertain me rookie." - Denzel Washington.

From the specific use of words, references to culture, ethnicity, or statements from individuals that really have no relevance to the story one can't help but agree with Denzel's character. The point here is, the media contributes to sensationalizing news. Bad news sells and the worse you can make the story or "spin-it", the more people will be involved.

The thing that enticed me to write this was a recent article by Michael Smyth in the Province date Sept 20th, 2007. As someone with experience in the public sector, I find this article interesting but not for the reasons you might think at first glance. Michael Smyth is trying to illustrate the conundrum that NDP leader Carole James is in where she has to publicly advocate against the Liberals and their spending on Highway Improvements (coined "Black-Top Politics") but still agree that "some" of these improvements are necessary. What does that mean exactly? Does that mean everyone agrees that the improvements are needed but choose to oppose them simply because it because tabled by the opposing party? Shouldn't this be about the constituent.

Reading the article again (with a little guidance from me) you realize that what Smyth has creatively done is imply that highway improvements for the purpose of boosting votes near elections is a given and that we should instead focus on the fact that parties politically can't support each other because of "politics" versus the need of the constituents.

What the real truth here is that regardless of what year the project actually proceeds to construction, much time is put into the analysis and design of the project (a process that can often take several years). The process involves consultation with relevant stakeholders, considers environmental impacts (yes, we all have to comply to environmental standards), and most importantly has to make sense. A strong business case that focuses on the economics of the project: a high Net Present Value, a high Benefit/Cost ratio, strong savings from safety implications (fatality, injury, personal property damage), and it has to make sense to our stakeholders. As of recent you also find a focus on greenhouse gas emissions (in the form of reduction by tonnage).

The real point (yes I'm getting to it) is that a project does not simply show up in an election year unless the people behind the scenes believe its a project that needs to be there. The process isn't flawless, but it is defensible by any traditional economic standards. The Gateway project was created much in the same way has a investment window well beyond the next election. Politics aside, Smythe's article is a bit too presumptions and misleads the reader into an interpretation of highway project delivery that is not founded.

My 2 thoughts anyways...

Konvict Music

Second concert of the year and it was great. I have never been a huge fan of either Artist (Rihanna or Akon) but much like the JT concert, I can sure appreciate a good "live" performance.

The concert opened with the Rascalz whom I hadn't heard from in years (Remember the patriotic - "Northern Touch"). It was a short set and we missed a few songs given that the show started at 7:30 and that's when they decided to open the doors. We didn't find out seats till a little after 8:00.

When I first heard of the concert, I was wondering who was going to headline. Both Akon & Rihanna have songs on the Billboard charts although Rihanna has exploded with the latest release of her CD, "Good Girls Gone Bad" and hits like "Umbrella" featuring Jay-Z. After listening to both and seeing the demographic in the crowd (much like Justin Timberlake), the cross appeal of these artists between gender and demographics is much the same. Akon may be seen as edgier "reggae-rap" with songs like "Smack that" and numerous references to being a "Konvict". In my opinion, he doesn't have the voice to be convincing of hardcore ghetto rap. Its more melodious, and that's why he often sings the hooks (chorus) to compilations like "Smack That" featuring Eminem. Still he does have a good flow.


Rihanna's performance was great as she gradually revealed more and more of those "legs" that are all edged insured over a million dollars. Her focus was on singing, although she would join her dancers for some minor hip-shaking or walk-abouts around the stage. Her performance live is really good and I was impressed with her vocals. My brother in-law (who owns the CD and wants to propose) knew all the words while I knew most of her more popular hits. Over all its was quite entertaining and she played to the crowd well. Her renditions of her hits were flavoured with more electric guitar to give it a harder sound which the crowd also seemed to appreciate. I would say that while the girls were screaming, the guys were all in awe of her talent (her musical talent of course).

Akon's DJ (DJ Benny I believe) did a great job of hyping the crowd prior to Akon stepping on stage. This is what I feel was missing from the JT concert as the crowd is constantly entertained by a "live" performance even in the absence of the main event. The DJ "spun" current hits by JT, Beyonce, & T.I. and did the traditional "sound-check" to make sure everyone was loud-enough for Akon.

From my perspective, the crowd was ready for Akon as they seemed to erupt as he casually strolled on stage. I enjoyed his performance more from the perspective my wife (also at the concert) is a huge fan so I am more familiar with his work. Again, much like Rihanna, his performance focused on gradually revealing his naked upper-half throughout the concert while throwing "sweaty" towels into the concert. Perhaps I'm to old to appreciate a good sweaty towel anymore as I found the fact people were scrambling for this more disturbing than anything else. The Canucks Jersey that he dawned towards the end of his performance would have been a bargain though and I can definitely see the passion that the Vancouverites feel for their hockey team.

Towards the end of his performance, Akon walked off stage after being told by his DJ that they had been asked to shut down the performance as "Da Time Was Up". After a breif dialogue about going to jail and taking GM place with him, he randomly appeared in the middle crowd. For the next 30 minutes or so, Akon struggled to make his way from left-to-right as the female fans went literally "nuts". I appreciated the fact that he was able to do this for the fans. So many in his position are hands off when it comes to such interactions and choose to remain on stage. It could also be the fact that he is a male artist and does not mind the touch of a thousand females grabbing his body.

Grading:

I give the performance an A. The venue was great; the concert was small and only occupied a quarter of GM place giving it a real intimate vibe with a good view. The artists performed well live and exceeded my expectations of what I was expecting from either of them. What the show was missing was additional theatrics and a larger stage presence. Both artists are singers, not performers, when compared to JT, which I seem to appreciate more from artists in terms of the ability to dance. Concert wise it was well worth it and I liked the fact that I didn't face a 2 hour drive to get home after.


My 2 thoughts anyways....

Is MTV not playing enough Music??

I watched the MTV Awards (or lack of Awards) and I know everyone is weighing in on Britney's performance, the Lee/Rock fight, or Kanye West's rant about being given a chance. While I could care less about most of these (Kanye desearves to be arrogant, his new album sounds great), I was more interested in a comment made by Justin Timberlake.

JT mentioned twice when accepting awards that he would like to see MTV play more music videos. I didn't get it at first, but it got me thinking. There is great deal of interest in reality television now, but is it truly taking over the music airwaves. Remember that "Video Killed the Radio Stars", but is Reality TV killing music videos? Jessica Simpson, Ashley Simpson, So You Think You can Dance, The House of Carters, Gene Simmons and the Family Jewels?? I thought I would find out:

Legend:

Reality - Anything that is based on reality television or close to it. Includes music competitions.

Other related music - Shows related to music but do not contain videos (autobiographies, news on stars etc.)

Music Videos - Countdowns, Top Tens, Music by Genre

TV Shows - OC, Roseanne, etc.

JT is clearly stating the obvious. MTV programming seems more concerned with with music related shows then simply playing music (MTV Live, MTV e2). Reality TV also is the highest with this station as compared to others (Next, True Love, MTV Cribs). Music Videos was a staggering 0%.
You have to give it up for Canadian programming. Overwhelming at 53% is dedicated solely to music video programing (MMM Countdown, MMM Top Tens). A split between TV shows and reality ("Celebrity Fit Club" vs. "MuchMoreMusic Profile") at a mere 20% and no real concern for attacting tv shows.
Country Music Television plays a good mix of music videos but alot of Reba, Roseanne, and Married with Children. I never really understood country but at 6% they aren't interested in reality either.
Finally Much Music, our Canadian Anchor. I am proud to say that it comes a close second in music video content at 50%. Reality television is also moderately high with shows like "So You Think You Can Dance" dominating time slots.

All analysis was taken over a 24hr period on September 12th, 2007.

Now that you think about it, you probably agree. Whens the last time you saw a string of music videos when flipping through the music station instead of being bombarded with tv shows, commercials, reality tv, commercials, and something that was music realted (somewhat). I agree with Justin, where have all the videos gone, or did reality tv kill music videos? I will let you know when myself and the buggles come up with an appropriate song.

My 2 thoughts anyways....

UBC - Do the Savings Really Add Up?

UBC recently announced that they would no long be accepting credit cards as a form of payment. This on the account that the University could save upwards of $2.5 Million dollars annually that they can redirect towards general revenue (originally believed to be towards teaching development that was later retracted as a place to direct the savings - Click the title link for the original statement). What follows is a brief analysis of the consolidated financial statements and a comparative of what students (particularly international students) will lose with this new initiative.

Universities are said to better operate as a business so as to understand and realize bigger profits. Revenue sources are generally believed to come from student fees offset by expenses including salary and benefits along with operational costs (maintenance, utilities, etc). However, looking at the consolidated financial statements you realize that student fees are only 17% of UBC's revenue. The commanding portion of revenue sources is formed through government grants and other contracts UBC solicits. Looking on the other side of the balance sheet you see that only 3% of the total expenses are associated with COGS (Cost of Goods Sold - where you would find processing payment expenses). Add to this the fact that UBC (given its volume and size of transactions) is most likely receiving a preferred rate on its processing fees and questions are abound. At $2.5 Million in savings and using 2006 counts for students of 37643 FTE's (Full Time Equivalents), you realize that the rate being charged by the credit card companies has to be around 0.94% on the dollar. Most companies are charged anywhere from 2.0-2.2%. Still, the University has decided that this is a way to save money and how can one really argue when their is no visible downside. You can still transfer funds, make debit payments, or right cheques; all potential expenses to students (not the university) and not to mention annual fees students may already be paying on their credit cards.

As with any comparison, I thought to myself what group is the most effected by the discontinuation of credits cards as a payment method. To understand this, you have to understand why many choose to pay their fees via credit card in the first place. I ignored the fact that this is simply because the funds don't currently exist and parents/students are looking for an additional 30 days. I base this on the following reasons: 1) you would have to pay these fees in 30 days anyways; 2) Tuition is a very large sum and you would incur a sizable penalty if you didn't pay it off; 3) Other forms of payments exists including debit, money transfer, and cheques. The reason most probably here is many realize that the fringe benefits of credit cards are quite enticing. Travel Rewards, points towards goods, and cash rebates are all strong ways in which credit card companies have encouraged consumers to sign up for large annual fees with the promise of sizable return on investment (ROI). This is most evident in Costco where an executive memberships is reimbursed if it doesn't pay for itself via the 2% cash rebate.

If the above is true (based on my assumptions) then the following exercise is quite fruitful in understanding the impact to international students. I use international students for the following reasons: 1) The most popular rewards involve those associated with travel (all major banks have at least one travel reward credit card); 2) International Students have the most to gain from these rewards given the expense of traveling home; 3) International Students was the easiest group to define for this analysis given the information available.

Assumptions:

-Tuition for FTE's is not widely dispersed in range (allows me to use a average).

-The figures represented by the travel reward companies are accurate

-Majority of students who have travel rewards with their credit card choose either aeroplan or airmiles.

-Student/Parents (based on the analysis) would choose a reward (aeroplan) that is faster to redeem

-Students/Parents are traveling home (Round Trip) on Christmas (High Season) between December 20th and January 2nd)

Hard to read so if you interested in a copy let me know. As you can see this group contributes close to $3.2 Million dollars to the UBC coffers (most likely more because international fees are represented in local dollars). If all undergraduate international students used credit cards with travel rewards for flights home on Christmas, close to 17% of them would be able to travel home for FREE (with other subsidizing a portion of their travel).

It begs the question on whether the fees that UBC is trying to save, are actually being more than paid for and allowing certain parents to have their children home for the holidays FREE of charge. It is not worth it to give the parents some breaks given that general revenues at UBC have increased by more than 25% since 2000 thanks to increasing tuition of 2% per year. UBC doesn't seem to think so. Instead they have focuse on a marginal part of their operations and transferred additional expenses to students. They don't see the downside, but that takes some creativity as I have shown above.

My 2 thoughts anyways...