August 2006 Archive
If you’re reading this from the comfort of an ergonomically designed office chair tucked away in one of America’s vast cubicle farms, take a peek at the person in the cube next to you: There’s a good chance they might be part of a billion dollar problem for US businesses. According to a recent study by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, about 37 million workers take part in fantasy football leagues and spend about an hour a week at work checking stats and managing their teams, which the report estimates is costing companies more than $1 billion in lost productivity. The emotional toll of having Aaron Brooks as your fantasy quarterback, by the way, is incalculable.
But fantasy football is hardly the worst offender when it comes to productivity loss. A similar study conducted by the Chicago-based outplacement consulting firm found that businesses lose more than $3 billion in productivity during the NCAA basketball tournament. I find this figure a little hard to believe, though, because March Madness is such a crap shoot it literally takes me five minutes to fill out my bracket. Of course, maybe that explains my 0-10 record in the office pool.
But judge not all you non-fantasy sports fans lest ye be judged: We all know you’ve been bidding on eBay for that vintage set of Star Wars action figures, and the Challenger Grey report says that trolling the online auction site wastes just as much work time as fantasy football. (By the way, if anyone spots a Darth Vader carrying case in good condition, let me know.)
Given these statistics it seems rather incredible that this is the most productive country on Earth, but then again, we’ve become a nation of multi-taskers, right? We can check our stock portfolios on Yahoo! and book trips to Cabo on Expedia and still finish that 500-page proposal on time.
This is all the more reason for us to relax and enjoy the long holiday weekend this Labor Day. We work hard juggling work and Googling for racy pictures of the Olsen twins, we deserve a day off.
Right now in India, Coke is definitely not “it” and Pepsi is not “the cola.” Some vocal Indians are challenging the soft-drink giants and focusing attention on the country’s faulty food regulation system.
The uproar began when an environmental organization, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), reported earlier this month that there were high levels of pesticides in sodas manufactured by the companies in India. Some Indian citizens were not pacified by the PR spin from Coke and Pepsi. The soda makers soon found that their usual smoothing-over procedures were not enough for this emerging market and are now scrambling to find ways to reassure customers.
In the US, Coke and Pepsi (depending on your preference) are considered as American as apple pie. While soft drinks are not the healthiest beverages on the market, most of us indulge in the sweet bubbly drinks on a regular basis – probably without thinking a lot about what’s in them.
Had similar findings been discovered in the US, would the sodas have been banned by government leaders, as they have been in some areas of India? It’s hard to imagine such extreme reactions here, in part because we have competent regulators watching over our food and beverage industries.
In India, the CSE report’s accuracy is being challenged by Coke, Pepsi, and the Indian health ministry. The government’s food monitoring system, which is still under development, has no set standards for allowable levels of pesticides in soft drinks. According to the New York Times, India’s groundwater is so polluted that most food products contain some pesticide traces, and sugar is particularly difficult to cleanse of pesticide residue.
So what’s ahead for the soda industry in India? While it’s good that watchdog organizations are looking out for the public, India needs to put in place a dependable regulatory system now to prevent future problems. International companies, including Coke and Pepsi, could also learn a lesson from this situation. A quick and forthright response is essential when brand quality is challenged – or companies risk losing consumers’ trust.
General Motors recently announced plans to resurrect the famed Camaro - the model was discontinued in 2002. While Ford is moving Mustangs and Chrysler has debuted the new Charger and has the Challenger on the way, GM is looking to get back in the muscle car business. The new Camaro, based on a concept GM debuted at this year’s North American International Auto Show, is scheduled to roll off a Canadian assembly line in 2009.
With record-high gas prices why is GM picking this time to roll out a gas-sucking muscle car? GM thinks it can sell a lot of Camaros. Before the Camaro rebirth was green-lighted, GM product Czar Bob Lutz said the company would have to sell at least 100,000 units per year for the Camaro to be a viable program. Ford sold more than 160,000 Mustangs in 2005, and Lutz wants some of those sales. But beyond that, muscle cars are just cool.
When I was about 11 I was thumbing through my latest issue of Hot Rod at the breakfast table. “When I can drive I’m gonna get a car like that,” I said mashing my finger on a purple 1968 GTO convertible. “No wait! I’m gonna get a car like that!” This time I pointed to a blue 1971 Mach 1.
My dad looked at me over his glasses, “And how exactly do you expect to pay for a car?” I thought about it for a second before coming back with my father’s all-time favorite response…”I don’t know.”
I proceeded to hear the granddaddy of father-son fiscal responsibility lectures. The gist of it was – Not one cent of my father’s money was leaving his wallet for a car, gas, repairs, etc. If I wanted a car I could have one at 16 so long as I paid for it myself.
Approximately 182,000 copies of the Houston Chronicle later, I had my first car – a rusted out 1973 Firebird with 110,000 miles on it. SWEET!
It was 1983. The Sabbath was cranked. My mullet was coming in nicely. The only problem was I spent more time lying in a puddle of oil and fire ants under the car than cruising for babes inside it.
Flash forward to the year 2019. Mullets are back in style. A 16-year-old kid gets his first car – a 2009 Chevrolet Camaro. The 2-quart puddle of oil he’s lying in costs $22. Fire ants have been extinct for three years. Life is good.
Stock ticker symbols, as you likely know, are the shorthand representations for publicly traded equities. For stocks traded on the Big Board, the American Stock Exchange, and NASDAQ, these are letters and combinations of letters, usually ranging from one to four letters. It’s much the same scheme on the Canadian and European exchanges. The Hong Kong, Taipei, and Tokyo exchanges, however, are no fun at all; they resort to using numbers for symbolizing stocks.
Trying to keep up with all these lettered ticker symbols often leaves me feeling like a SPAZ. I could use METH to be more alert and energized, but that’s not a healthy option. SOYO, I don’t have to go thirsty, partaking of BUD and COKE. YUM! Did I EAT yet? Thanks, I already ATE at JOES – had some BRAN, BUNZ, CAKE, and OATS.
Gazing over the stock listings, I see there is a CAT, a CATT, and CATS, but no DOG, unless you’re playing in exchange-traded funds on the Amex. You know the Amex – they brought us the SPDRs from Mars, not Ziggy Stardust. Don’t give this DRUG or PILL to your PETS! WOOF!
LEND me your ears, ASAP! Go ahead and FLEX your ARM, but try not to HIT anyone, unless you want to BOX. Give it your ALL, BRO. Let’s go on the ATAC and break things into BITS! Someone call a COP! You know me, AL. My name is ED. What’s up, DOC? Anything for a BUCK. I haven’t got a CENT, but I can get some CASH. Stay CALM. Take AIM, I say. TIC TOC, time’s a-wastin’. QUIK! The train is hurtling down the track, KLICkity KLAC! We could go to CHINA. WAT?! Y, oh Y?
I slept like ALOG on AMAT, not a COT. Fill out this FORM, please. Yes, DEAR. Oh, I’m no good at MATH. I am what I AM, and SAM I am. I need some AIR! Come on, feel the NOIZ. Get LOUD! Come and PLAY a TUNE. That would BFUN, lots of FUN. Pardon this product PLUG. BOO! I’m on a ROLL! Get REAL. Don’t get a ‘TOOD on me. Take an AXE to this exercise!
It’s the kind of story that seems too good to be true, really. A team of scientists published a study in the scientific journal Nature, claiming they have developed a process to ethically extract stem cells from human embryos without destroying them.
Concern about destroying embryos is what led the Bush administration, under pressure from pro-life activists, to withdraw government funding from stem cell research in 2001. At the time, critics claimed that US scientists would lag behind researchers abroad or in privately funded businesses. As it turns out, the scientists who wrote the article work for Advanced Cell Technology, a struggling company trading on the OTC market.
When the story hit this week, I recalled that the company in 2001 and 2003 (before its reverse merger) developed procedures to clone embryos and thus harvest stem cells ethically. However, neither produced viable stem cells for biomedical research — thus the need to merge with a publicly traded shell company that formerly manufactured Hopi katchina dolls. The move enabled Advanced Cell Technology to raise equity in the public markets.
Of course, if Advance Cell Technology’s stem cell extraction techniques are successful, it will be a tremendous breakthrough for science and the company. Before the stem cell announcement, which coincided with its most recent debt offering, the company appeared in need of some good news. Its stock was trading at its lowest point, and its most recent 10Q filing showed a decline in revenues and assets. (In 2005 the firm had $10 million in losses and $400,000 in revenues.) CFO James G. Stewart resigned August 17; the next day the company released a proxy soliciting a stock split. An 8K announced that stock option grants had been made to the company’s remaining top executives, including Dr. Robert Lanza, head of research and lead author of Nature article.
After the Nature press release August 23, the company’s stock price jumped 358%. More than 400 articles appeared on the Internet that afternoon alone, immediately re-igniting the controversy of government funding of stem cell research. By the next morning, the political and ethical issues raised by the study were front-page news around the world.
My take is there’s likely another story about the company behind the headlines.