I'm all for giving people more liberties to do what they want with their money and I see nothing worse about letting people invest their money in whatever startups they want, though a reputable investment mechanism should be established so as to minimize the risks of scams, etc. There are many other ways for a fool and his money to be parted (casinos, lotteries, booze, overshopping) and those aren't illegal.
Going back to the reputable investment mechanism, I think this is needed not only for investors, but also for startups. No startup company wants to deal with thousands of different ownership voices - its better to have a concentrated voice (e.g. VC fund manager) raising only the largest issues. Rather than encouraging individuals to invest (like Kickstarter), give all individuals the ability to invest in funds created to invest in specific startups (e.g. Turntable fund, Pinterest fund).
So creating a fund that has a clear investment strategy of investing in a particular startup. How about creating mutual funds that invest in startups in general. It'd allow for diversification of multiple startups and give founders one concentrated voice. That way retail investors can get exposure to startups as venture funds are beyond this investor class.
Venture Capitalists are basically mutual funds that invest in startups. The y get most of their investment from pension funds who are investing for a large chunk of Americans.
I guess I was looking to see if there could be a more direct approach to it. Your pension fund invests in multiple assets classes and in multiple industries because of diversification. With a mutual fund that strictly invests in startups individuals with small amounts of money could gain access to the startup market in a direct way but still with professional money management. It essentially would be a VC fund composed of retail investors where traditional VC funds are composed of institutional (pension funds, etc) and high net worth individuals.
I don't know if you will ever see this response because I took so long to write it but you do have a point. The casual investor cannot invest in venture funds. One problem with funds like this is that they could end up going to zero if they miss everything or could invest in businesses which are not sound to help their friends.
In an effort to prevent this type of mistreatment of investors it is harder for them to raise money from individuals. In my opinion, the returns to VC firms on the average (not just the home runs) are not worth the potential losses.
But, the reverse argument could certainly be made and it will be an issue that I'm sure is discussed long in to the future.
*One area that most people are not aware exists is the area of fund manager vetting and analysis. This is mostly done by institutional investors and is something the average retail investor would have a lot of difficulty with.
I agree - Kiyosaki is full of hot-air generalizations that will just as easily put you into huge financial headaches (e.g. huge investment losses, tax penalties, shot credit) as build wealth.
You can't underestimate the gullibility of the masses when a book starts getting some good initial publicity - the wave becomes its own animal with everyone repeating all of the good things previously said of the book, no matter how right or wrong. Sad to say, I bought and read the book a few years under the same guidance.
Product being up-sold like a time share? Superlative claims like a male enhancement product? Partnering with Donald Trump's hair? Check, check and check.
The key here is the "accredited" investor restriction for funds that invest in anything other than the most vanilla of securities (i.e. stocks and bonds). This is also why most of us cannot invest in hedge funds or private equity funds.
In protecting people from themselves, the government is limiting participation in a potentially very lucrative area of investment to only those with money (the rich get richer). I don't believe that everyone is equipped with the financial knowledge to deal with the risk associated with participating in alternative investment funds, but I'd much rather that everyone have the opportunities to take the risks that they choose. Casinos are legal in many areas, strip clubs are legal in even more areas, and shopping malls are everywhere - all of these cause people to take arguably unnecessary risks with their financial health (and some would say even greater than investing). Particularly with the plethora of financial information available on the Internet, the everyday Joe has more resources than ever.
I'd love to see Congress eliminate the "accredited investor" requirement for investing in alternative funds so that everyone can have the same access to investing in startups, private companies, etc. I'm sure more than enough funds will spring up to meet investor demand, this being a capitalistic sociey and all.
Finally, startups can choose to avoid the problem of many small direct investments by ordinary investors (i.e. too many people to report to). by accepting money only from the investment funds or from few large investors, if such sources are available and willing. If such sources are not available to a startup, then you have to go with the options you have, (e.g. many small direct investors, self-funding, fail), as has always been the case.
Don't see how a measly (relatively speaking for these giant companies) $250M should have been a major factor for Nokia to choose to focus on Windows Phones rather than Android.
Apple and Google are dominating the smartphone OS market and I don't see how two slow-moving companies will make a serious dent in the consumer market. How many people wold would give up their iPhone for a Windows phone, especially as an early adopter? I'd be very surprised if any Windows Phone gains serious traction with consumers.
The best shot I see for Windows Phone success would be in the enterprise market where easy/free compatibility with MS Office products and other MS products used at work could be a large benefit. But Apple is making headway here as well so it could all be for naught.
Microsoft is gigantic, rich and relentless, they do not give up. Look at the amounts of cash they've been burning on Bing for years patiently waiting for their opening. You should not never count them out.
You make it sound like its inevitable that Bing will be a huge success just because Microsoft can burn money. Its has made inroads, but my guess is that it has reached its peak.
I'm not counting on Microsoft giving up on its products - I just see them as patiently burning through cash (generated from its successful cash cows) without making a significant splash in mobile. Just because they can afford to throw away money doesn't mean that they'll be successful at all of their new ventures.
This isn't exclusively a Microsoft thing either. Look at Google and its multiple attempts at new products (Wave, Buzz, Google+). They can obviously afford it because of their own cash cow, search.
I DO think that it is inevitable that Microsoft won't become a threat so I stated my opinion and gave my reasons for it. Your reason that I shouldn't count them out was solely because they have cash to burn and have shown a past willingness to burn it. My reply to you is that such willingness does not mean that they will ever contend in this market.
I ended up getting the Samsung Focus S. I was convinced I was switching to Android and going to get the Galaxy Nexus after owning every iPhone since the 3G. However, after looking at several different phones I found the Mango UI to be the most innovative take on interfaces. I actually feel that as far as the core interface goes both Mango and Android have pulled far ahead of iOS.
Jury nullification has to do with returning a "Not Guilty" verdict in the face of evidence that would suggest otherwise.
What you are talking about it a "hung jury" where the 5% person is able to prevent a unanimous "Guilty" verdict. Depending on the state, the requirement for conviction may be unanimity or something less (11 to 1, 10 to 2, I don't remember if it goes any less). In this cases, the prosecutors may choose to retry the defendant - if you think about it, if the prosecutors decided to try him once, why not twice? The odds are the same the second time around (i.e. the odds of not getting the 5% person on the jury).
Regarding "bogus convictions", the jury only gets to make its decision when a high enough evidentiary threshold is met. Otherwise, the judge must throw the case out for not meeting minimum requirements.
Think of it like this (note that this is my own approximate guesses taken from my law school class on Criminal Law) - "Reasonable doubt" may be a 95% confidence threshold for the jury to convict. For the decision to get to the jury, the judge has to decide that the evidence is at least 75% confidence level in his opinion. Its only 75% for the judge because he is not the finder of fact and the jury can reasonably decide that what the judge views as 75% certainty of guilt is actually 95% in their view.
So to sum up, the situation is not as dire as you would suggest. I agree that jury nullification can be a big problem in the wrong situations (racist communities, etc) and that is why the law tries to minimize its impact (e.g. defense attorneys cannot mention jury nullification to a jury during the trial) while preserving defendants' rights to a jury of peers.
Like seemingly every aspect of law, there isn't a clear cut answer either way.
"In this cases, the prosecutors may choose to retry the defendant - if you think about it, if the prosecutors decided to try him once, why not twice?"
Prosecuting a defendant is an expensive process. It's not free. And even though one hung jury won't save the defendant, if juries start hanging two or three times every time a crime is prosecuted, the state is going to have to start rethinking its stance on prosecuting that crime from a budget perspective alone.
The same tactic has been offered for contesting every speeding ticket to prevent governments from using it as a revenue stream. If everybody contested every ticket, it would cost more to in trial costs than the state would make in fines.
Yeah, they dropped out because they knew Cornell was going to get it and they preferred to quit rather than lose.
From multiple accounts, Stanford didn't have the same passion/funding/flexibility as Cornell in getting the deal done. Stanford is more prestigious, but that's not the only factor obviously - or why even have an open competiton at all?
Brick and mortar or online, still basically a loan with a very high interest rate (~36% in this case) while also putting up collateral worth more than the loan.
Only use these services in the most dire of financial circumstances. If you're in a situation where you have to pawn valuables, it may be time to start thinking about getting a normal job to reassess and regroup.
Interest on loans/credit is reported in terms of annual rate, not monthly. This loan at 3% per month is 36% per year. You won't find a credit card in the US at an interest rate that high.
I would not be so sure about credit cards. I was in search for basic credit card when just moved to USA to start my credit history somewhere... I was offered credit cards which are:
1) Secured. I.e. I have to have whole credit line amount as a cash on CD with the same bank.
I'm betting that 3% was compounded monthly too, so the net effect would be higher than 36% - probably north of 40, but I can't be bothered to do the math.
From what I've heard from people who work at Google, the environment there is one where there are tons of projects ongoing but seemingly little long-term dedication/passion in making these products successful.
Employees do what's in their job description but don't go above and beyond because they don't know if the project is going to be continued to be supported by upper management. Its a self-fulfillng feeling of inevitable failure. My impression is that management needs to have better vision and commitment other than "let's throw everything half-hearted at the wall and see what may miraculously stick".
However, Google is still the king of search and making gobs of money - at least they're still doing the biggest and most important part of their products right.
As a former associate at a "white shoe" law firm and having been part of the recruiting/interviewing process, I can vouch for most of the observations the article makes.
The Process:
1) HR (and the hiring partner + his helpers) looks through the piles of resumes and decides who to interview or give a full-day callback
Aside: Many top law schools have job fairs where students bid on law firms to interview with and law firms have to accept interviews with those students who bid highest. The schools set this up so that low-GPA students can still get interviews and hopefully impress the interviewer with his/her passion/personality. Surprisingly, this can work out quite well in many instances for the low-GPA students, so long as the stretch isn't too big. Law firms agree to these terms or otherwise, schools deny them access to the job fair. Maybe the recent economic turmoil has changed the dynamic, but I'm not sure.
2) The initial interview (at a job fair or otherwise) is just one person who interviews you and decides whether or not to give you the opportunity for a full-day callback interview on site.
3) On site, there are usually 3-4 one-on-one interviews with a mix of partners and mid to senior level associates. Then its a lunch interview (at a high-end restaurant) with a couple of junior associates.
Any one of the aforementioned people can kill the interviewee's chances with a strong "No", though there are always exceptions when a partner has strong feelings the other way.
From my experience and talking with partners and associates, the only real criteria interviewers tend to consider:
(i) "Gut feel" - meaning whether you like the interviewee and view him/her as an enthusiastic likeable person (remember that you'll likely have to spend lots of late nights working with this person),
(ii) School/grades - knowing how everyone in the legal industry knows how important law school pedigree is in the profession, someone making it into top law schools is considered a huge indicator. Even young associates are very congnizant of law school because we know how hard we tried to get into the top schools because we knew how important it was (much much more important than for undergrad). And don't forget that this is a prestigious law firm with lots of white-haired conservative Yale and Harvard old men.
[Note: This will often have a hard/soft cutoff which will reject an applicant no matter how great the personality or extracurricular]
iii) Exceptional extracurriculars/interests - only things that really make an applicant memorable are worth anything because anyone with half a brain can come up with a list of activities/interests.
iv) Physical attractiveness for women - given that senior management in the legal profession is still dominated by men and that the most attractive women generally don't end up being lawyers, I think this can sometimes come into play (and lets not pretend that it doesn't in the rest of the world).
Going back to the reputable investment mechanism, I think this is needed not only for investors, but also for startups. No startup company wants to deal with thousands of different ownership voices - its better to have a concentrated voice (e.g. VC fund manager) raising only the largest issues. Rather than encouraging individuals to invest (like Kickstarter), give all individuals the ability to invest in funds created to invest in specific startups (e.g. Turntable fund, Pinterest fund).