I used to do this thing towards the end of my time at Bridgewater - I'd take 15 mins every day and just reflect on how the day went. I'd answer 2 questions. What I said I would do? And what did I actually do? StartingBloc reminded me how important that was. I'm going to bring this back into my routine.
There is lots that I can talk about re SB. But here's a question for all of you out there. If someone came to you and said I'll give you 300K and you can do whatever you want with it. All I ask in return is 3% of your future earnings (for the rest of your life). Would you take it? Now I know all my ex hedgefund friends will be laughing out loud at a question like this. And I'm with them - I'd never take this offer. But what if you were a broke public policy student? And making money wasn't really your goal. What then? I can see the value of it for some people. Well Rafe Furst is investing in superstars. And I think it's a pretty neat idea. Angel investors always talking about investing in people, and not the idea. His argument is that this is done all the time in poker. So why not just translate this into real life. Food for thought.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Walking With The Comrades - Arundhati Roy
Excerpt from Arundhati Roy's piece on the Naxalites -
"I met Chamri, mother of Comrade Dilip who was shot on July 6, 2009. She says that after they killed him, the police tied her son’s body to a pole, like an animal and carried it with them. (They need to produce bodies to get their cash rewards, before someone else muscles in on the kill.) Chamri ran behind them all the way to the police station. By the time they reached, the body did not have a scrap of clothing on it. On the way, Chamri says, they left the body by the roadside while they stopped at a dhaba to have tea and biscuits. (Which they did not pay for.) Picture this mother for a moment, following her son’s corpse through the forest, stopping at a distance to wait for his murderers to finish their tea. They did not let her have her son’s body back so she could give him a proper funeral. They only let her throw a fistful of earth in the pit in which they buried the others they had killed that day. Chamri says she wants revenge. Badla ku badla. Blood for blood."
It's a long article, and like anyone's history it is hard to agree or disagree with. I recommend the read.
"I met Chamri, mother of Comrade Dilip who was shot on July 6, 2009. She says that after they killed him, the police tied her son’s body to a pole, like an animal and carried it with them. (They need to produce bodies to get their cash rewards, before someone else muscles in on the kill.) Chamri ran behind them all the way to the police station. By the time they reached, the body did not have a scrap of clothing on it. On the way, Chamri says, they left the body by the roadside while they stopped at a dhaba to have tea and biscuits. (Which they did not pay for.) Picture this mother for a moment, following her son’s corpse through the forest, stopping at a distance to wait for his murderers to finish their tea. They did not let her have her son’s body back so she could give him a proper funeral. They only let her throw a fistful of earth in the pit in which they buried the others they had killed that day. Chamri says she wants revenge. Badla ku badla. Blood for blood."
It's a long article, and like anyone's history it is hard to agree or disagree with. I recommend the read.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Case Study: Rumsfeld & ABu Ghraib
Last night we did a case study on ethics and moral responsibility around Abu Ghraib. The case study itself was good, but we kinda rushed through it because of the lack of time which sucked.
But at one point, a fellow student announces that he was assigned to Baghdad Central Prison (originally called Abu Ghraib) in 2005-2006 (i.e. post the scandal) and was part of the team tasked with turning it around. And turn it around they did. Apparently prisoners leaving would tell him that they've never been treated so well in their lives - 3 square meals a day, a restful 8 hours of sleep.
It's just amazing to be doing a case study on such a pivotal moment in US history and have someone who was on the ground and experiencing it to be part of the analysis.
But at one point, a fellow student announces that he was assigned to Baghdad Central Prison (originally called Abu Ghraib) in 2005-2006 (i.e. post the scandal) and was part of the team tasked with turning it around. And turn it around they did. Apparently prisoners leaving would tell him that they've never been treated so well in their lives - 3 square meals a day, a restful 8 hours of sleep.
It's just amazing to be doing a case study on such a pivotal moment in US history and have someone who was on the ground and experiencing it to be part of the analysis.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Social Enterprises - Legal Structures
My last social entrepreneurship class was GREAT! Greenblatt basically ran his Structure Lab (part of Criterion Ventures) seminar in class talking about the different legal structures and options social entrepreneurs have when they start their enterprises.
We talked about a number of very cool things, but I'm going to focus this post on the White Dog Cafe.
All entrepreneurs have to have an exit strategy. Even if your exit strategy is death you need to plan for it. We've all heard of the Ben&Jerry story where Unilever's hostile takeover left the owners unable to protect their social mission. How do you avoid that?
Well there aren't many options - but Judy Wicks, the owner of White Dog Cafe, has gifted us all with her brilliant solution. She basically incorporated 2 companies. The first owned all the intellectual property, logo, brand, trademark and the other the physical assets of the company - the kitchen, tables, inventory etc. When it came time to sell she wanted to make sure that the social mission of the White Dog remained in tact and wasn't abused by the new owners. So she basically held on to the brand and sold the rest of the company and the new owners could then license the White Dog Cafe brand from the entity she held. Of course this lowered the value of the company she sold, but she was able to ensure the mission wasn't diluted. If someone wanted to use the White Dog logo, they had to use sustainable produce and be involved in the community - all the values that Judy cherished.
It seems so simple to do, but until Judy no one had designed such a structure.
Now if Ben&Jerry would have kept control of the brand and logo but sold shares of the asset holding company instead they would never have been strong armed by Unilever. But they probably wouldn't have raised as much capital in their IPO either.
There's always trade-offs to be made.
We talked about a number of very cool things, but I'm going to focus this post on the White Dog Cafe.
All entrepreneurs have to have an exit strategy. Even if your exit strategy is death you need to plan for it. We've all heard of the Ben&Jerry story where Unilever's hostile takeover left the owners unable to protect their social mission. How do you avoid that?
Well there aren't many options - but Judy Wicks, the owner of White Dog Cafe, has gifted us all with her brilliant solution. She basically incorporated 2 companies. The first owned all the intellectual property, logo, brand, trademark and the other the physical assets of the company - the kitchen, tables, inventory etc. When it came time to sell she wanted to make sure that the social mission of the White Dog remained in tact and wasn't abused by the new owners. So she basically held on to the brand and sold the rest of the company and the new owners could then license the White Dog Cafe brand from the entity she held. Of course this lowered the value of the company she sold, but she was able to ensure the mission wasn't diluted. If someone wanted to use the White Dog logo, they had to use sustainable produce and be involved in the community - all the values that Judy cherished.
It seems so simple to do, but until Judy no one had designed such a structure.
Now if Ben&Jerry would have kept control of the brand and logo but sold shares of the asset holding company instead they would never have been strong armed by Unilever. But they probably wouldn't have raised as much capital in their IPO either.
There's always trade-offs to be made.
Net Impact
Ok - I have been terrible about keeping this blog updated and I apologize (mainly to myself, because this blog is a way of helping me think about my experiences at Wagner). I would say I promise to do a better job, but with finals in a few weeks I'm not sure I'll be keeping that promise.
Went to the annual Net Impact conference 2 weekends back up in Cornell. The conference is huge - they had 2600 people this year and it was an incredible networking opportunity. Got to see some great people talk about the work and impact they are having and also got to see some not so great panels (don't get me started on Corporate Social Responsibility).
The first day I was a bit disoriented - running across Cornell's humongous campus from one panel to the next in the bitter cold. I didn't know what to expect and I was just a bit lost. So I'd say the first day was a bit of a dud. Even the panels seemed uninteresting.
But the second day was incredible. Attended a case presented by Sustainable Harvest. Very cool company, doing incredible things in the coffee supply chain space. If you're looking for an internship next summer in CA, then I look them up. The final presentation on Emerging Market Investing was probably the best panel of the weekend. We had Grassroots Business Fund, Soros Economic Development Fund and JP Morgan's social investment fund on the panel. Strong NYU contingent in the first 2 rows which was great as well :)
Got some great career advice - bulk up on my finance skills and consider a stint at management consulting as a stepping stone to the social venture capital space. Now I'm torn about what to do with my next summer. Decisions! Decisions! Decisions!
High level take aways -
* Don't run from panel to panel, even if you think you'll miss the next panel. Slow down, talk to people. Create relationships
* Definitely stay for the after parties. We social sector people know how to get our drink on
* Best part of the trip was developing bonds with my fellow NYU students. A weekend away with friends is great bonding
Went to the annual Net Impact conference 2 weekends back up in Cornell. The conference is huge - they had 2600 people this year and it was an incredible networking opportunity. Got to see some great people talk about the work and impact they are having and also got to see some not so great panels (don't get me started on Corporate Social Responsibility).
The first day I was a bit disoriented - running across Cornell's humongous campus from one panel to the next in the bitter cold. I didn't know what to expect and I was just a bit lost. So I'd say the first day was a bit of a dud. Even the panels seemed uninteresting.
But the second day was incredible. Attended a case presented by Sustainable Harvest. Very cool company, doing incredible things in the coffee supply chain space. If you're looking for an internship next summer in CA, then I look them up. The final presentation on Emerging Market Investing was probably the best panel of the weekend. We had Grassroots Business Fund, Soros Economic Development Fund and JP Morgan's social investment fund on the panel. Strong NYU contingent in the first 2 rows which was great as well :)
Got some great career advice - bulk up on my finance skills and consider a stint at management consulting as a stepping stone to the social venture capital space. Now I'm torn about what to do with my next summer. Decisions! Decisions! Decisions!
High level take aways -
* Don't run from panel to panel, even if you think you'll miss the next panel. Slow down, talk to people. Create relationships
* Definitely stay for the after parties. We social sector people know how to get our drink on
* Best part of the trip was developing bonds with my fellow NYU students. A weekend away with friends is great bonding
Monday, November 2, 2009
Intentions vs Outcomes?
Do intentions matter?
This was the question we were dealing with Corporate Social Responsibility in the context of social entrepreneurship.
A lot of companies out there really adopt CSR to green wash their brands. This sort of goes against the core ideals of social entrepreneurship - to have social missions at the core of the organizations mission. Examples of Chevron spending millions to advertise their 50000 donation to save some butterfly species exemplifies the greenwashing and spin in todays markets.
So is it social entrepreneurship if one's intentions and motivations are driven by social value?
I can see why you intentions are important. There's this thing with spin and being manipulated that makes you uncomfortable. And then to dilute the promise of social entrepreneurship along with it, just adds to the discomfort.
But how do you ever gauge someones intentions? Unless you're on a first name basis with someone then I don't see how you could know their intentions.
I think outcomes matter more than intentions. Call me results oriented, but if I can achieve my goal through CSR, then I have no issue with labeling it as social enterprise. Specially if this gives corporations motivation to contribute to the solution.
This was the question we were dealing with Corporate Social Responsibility in the context of social entrepreneurship.
A lot of companies out there really adopt CSR to green wash their brands. This sort of goes against the core ideals of social entrepreneurship - to have social missions at the core of the organizations mission. Examples of Chevron spending millions to advertise their 50000 donation to save some butterfly species exemplifies the greenwashing and spin in todays markets.
So is it social entrepreneurship if one's intentions and motivations are driven by social value?
I can see why you intentions are important. There's this thing with spin and being manipulated that makes you uncomfortable. And then to dilute the promise of social entrepreneurship along with it, just adds to the discomfort.
But how do you ever gauge someones intentions? Unless you're on a first name basis with someone then I don't see how you could know their intentions.
I think outcomes matter more than intentions. Call me results oriented, but if I can achieve my goal through CSR, then I have no issue with labeling it as social enterprise. Specially if this gives corporations motivation to contribute to the solution.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tiffany - socially responsible?
You never really think socially responsible when you think of the Tiffany brand. I mean they mine the earth for shiny things to sell to Americans so they can adorn themselves with said shiny things. But if you can get beyond the basic issue of the luxury business and that mining destroys mother earth, then Tiffany is really an impressive organization.
Today Andrew Hart, from Tiffany, came to my social entrepreneurship class to talk about Tiffany's approach to doing the right thing. Tiffany is on the leading edge of pushing environmental standards for mining. They take their responsibility for social good very seriously on conflict diamonds, to living wage issues. Lots of impressive stuff that I won't get into.
But at the end of the day, they pursue these only because it is synonymous with the Tiffany brand. Can you imagine socialites buying diamonds if someone did an expose on Tiffany and conflict diamonds?
They have come up with a template for determining living wage to figure out what they would pay their diamond polishers in Vietnam. This is very innovative, because very few have an actual model for this. But they won't advertise this on their site, because the amount ($140 a month) is still something that would shock their clientele as being too low. But 140 is twice the minimum wage in Vietnam, and by making this model public they are in a position to shame their competitors into doing the same thing. It is a really powerful position to shape the behavior of an industry. But here is where the for-profit and social good conflict arises. The potential negative publicity for their brand prevents them from pursuing this social good (and what a powerful social changer this could be).
Now at the end of the day, they are really doing a lot of great stuff (def more than what I have ever contributed to date). It's just interesting to see how this line gets drawn and how original intentions and motivations play out. The counter argument is - so who cares what the original intention is. Sure they could do more, but what they've done already is really great.
Okay - have 3 midterms next week, I really shouldn't be spending my time blogging.
Today Andrew Hart, from Tiffany, came to my social entrepreneurship class to talk about Tiffany's approach to doing the right thing. Tiffany is on the leading edge of pushing environmental standards for mining. They take their responsibility for social good very seriously on conflict diamonds, to living wage issues. Lots of impressive stuff that I won't get into.
But at the end of the day, they pursue these only because it is synonymous with the Tiffany brand. Can you imagine socialites buying diamonds if someone did an expose on Tiffany and conflict diamonds?
They have come up with a template for determining living wage to figure out what they would pay their diamond polishers in Vietnam. This is very innovative, because very few have an actual model for this. But they won't advertise this on their site, because the amount ($140 a month) is still something that would shock their clientele as being too low. But 140 is twice the minimum wage in Vietnam, and by making this model public they are in a position to shame their competitors into doing the same thing. It is a really powerful position to shape the behavior of an industry. But here is where the for-profit and social good conflict arises. The potential negative publicity for their brand prevents them from pursuing this social good (and what a powerful social changer this could be).
Now at the end of the day, they are really doing a lot of great stuff (def more than what I have ever contributed to date). It's just interesting to see how this line gets drawn and how original intentions and motivations play out. The counter argument is - so who cares what the original intention is. Sure they could do more, but what they've done already is really great.
Okay - have 3 midterms next week, I really shouldn't be spending my time blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)