Author: Gil

Posted on

You know what’s awesome?

Working at home for several days, then coming into the office to square away a bunch of little details with people . . . only to discover that your desktop computer is dead!

Good thing I back up my issue and conference files on a 4gb thumb drive, and keep my (non-company) laptop on hand!

Sure would be nice to get to my old e-mails, though . . .

Posted on

Update

Sorry about the lack of posts, dear readers. This issue is really eating up all my time. I promise there’ll be some good Unrequired Reading tomorrow!

Posted on

Creative Creation?

A few years ago, I wrote about the American Jobs Creation Act (here and here), a bill passed in 2004 that permitted U.S. companies to repatriate overseas funds at a reduced tax rate (essentially 5.25%). It was a one-time act, and made some sense, given that the U.S. has one of the largest corporate tax rates in the world (essentially 35%). The joke I discovered about “jobs creation” was that, in the pharma business, this act overlapped with the onset of massive layoffs in this industry.

Today, the NYTimes writes about the bill, how the amount of money that came back to the U.S. was 50% higher than government estimates ($312 billion to $200 billion), and how the tax revenues generated were six times higher than a congressional committee anticipated ($18 billion to $2.6 billion). It’s great that tax revenues got a big boost, but the it looks like the biggest “creation” was in the creative accounting department.

Companies were told by the government that the repatriated funds had to be dedicated to R&D, employment, and other “jobs creation”-y domestic investments. Of course, there was no provision stating that funds previously allocated to those needs couldn’t be shifted away to other activities.

“It basically worked out to be one big giveaway,” said Robert Willens, a tax and accounting authority in New York. “The law never took into account the fact that money is fungible.”

Mr. Willens said while companies did make investments in their domestic operations, the repatriated money also freed up a corresponding amount of cash to pay out to shareholders or buy back stock — moves that do not generate job growth or investments. “We know that a lot of stock was retired during this time,” he said.

While you read all about it, I’ll get back to last year’s financials and letcha know what neat accounting tricks I come across.

Posted on

Which way to the gun show?

Sometimes, I get a little punchy from writing these Top Companies profiles all day. That’s when I blow off steam . . . by dressing my dog in my clothing:

I admit that I consider work-at-home sessions to be “No Pants Days,” but I resent the implication that people and their pets tend to resemble each other!

Posted on

What It Is: 6/23/08

What I’m reading: I finished Endless Things, by John Crowley, this weekend, but I have so much work to do on my Top Companies issue that I’m probably only going to be reading 10-Ks and annual reports for the next week or so. Oh, and some more Cromartie High School.

What I’m listening to: Boxer, by the National.

What I’m watching: Sumo marathon on ESPN Classic.

What I’m drinking: An awful lot of Hendrick’s G&Ts; that’s trade show life for ya!

Where I’m going: Nowhere. In fact, I’ll probably be working at home much of the week.

What I’m happy about: That my flight home from San Diego was only 40 minutes late. Oh, and that my wife and my dog were waiting both for me at the top of the stairs when I walked in the door at 1:45am on Saturday.

What I’m sad about: George Carlin died last night.

What I’m pondering: Which of my neighbors left a Jack Chick tract in my mailbox entitled, Love the Jewish People. Don’t get me wrong; it’s pretty awesome, even if it doesn’t reach the heights of Dark Dungeons. That’s the problem the history-oriented tracts have when they match up with the comic-narrative ones. Of course, this was the all-time awesomest. (I’m pretty sure I know which neighbor it was.)

Posted on

Towering! Folly?

A few weeks ago, the NYTimes published a magazine supplement about architecture or something. It included this meandering ramble about building cities that have no history. Written by the paper’s starchitecture critic, Nicholas Ouroussoff, it glowingly describes the miraculous super-projects to be designed by Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid, Steven Holl and others. The elephant in the room that Ouroussoff fails to mention is that all of these places that are offering these opportunities “happen” to be dictatorships (to be fair, he does mention that most of these “new cities” appear to be built as playgrounds for the rich, with no opportunity for interaction among classes).

While the architects celebrate the openness that these nations have, and the willingness they have to undertake massive top-down projects designed to show off their wealth, we’re able to read between the lines:

Take [Steven] Holl’s Linked Hybrid in Beijing, for example, which has a surprisingly open, communal spirit. A series of massive portals lead from the street to an elaborate internal courtyard garden, a restaurant, a theater and a kindergarten, integrating the complex into the surrounding neighborhood. Bridges connect the towers 12 to 19 stories above ground and are conceived as a continuous string of public zones, with bars and nightclubs overlooking a glittering view of the city and a suspended swimming pool. “The developer’s openness to ideas was amazing,” Holl says. “When they first asked me to do the project, it was just housing. I suggested adding the cinematheque, the kindergarten. I added an 80-room hotel and the swimming pool as well. Anywhere else, they’d build it in phases over several years. It’s too big. After our meeting, they said we’re building the whole thing all at once. I couldn’t believe it. We haven’t had to compromise anything. . . .”

“We haven’t had to compromise anything”? Great! Because the building’s the thing!

Today’s NYTimes offers a balance to that morally idiotic sentiment, as architects discuss whether to take jobs from dictatorships. The article by Robin Pogrebin takes as a starting point Daniel Libeskind’s statement that he won’t work for totalitarian regimes (Singapore excepted) and, while it humorously tries to contrast Robert A.M. Stern with Rem Koolhaas —

Architects face ethical dilemmas in the West too. Some refuse to design prisons; others eschew churches. Robert A. M. Stern, who is also Yale’s architecture dean, drew some criticism last year when he accepted an assignment to design a planned George W. Bush Library in Dallas.

— it gets to the point about exactly the compromises that Holl avoids seeing:

Architects readily point out that dictators — or powerful central governments like China’s — can be among the most efficient in getting architecture built, as the boom in China attests. “The more centralized the power, the less compromises need to be made in architecture,” said the architect Peter Eisenman. “The directions are clearer.”

Sorta makes me want to read The Fountainhead again, now that I’m twice as old as the last time I read it.