Articles about the Business & Investing

I just got this "book", having not read Gladwell's other two, much to my chagrin. Sorry to be harsh, and though I agree that much of people's success is due to privilege, the book itself is a very bad account of this thesis.

There are a lot of problems with his "book". In general, unlike other reviewers, I actually think that this "book's" premise has elements of truth to it. Actually, a lot. My main issues with this "book" are its 1) poor presentation, 2) bad citation, 3) lack of careful consideration of evidence against the specific arguments in the book, and 4) the simple fact that there are other treatments that tell the same thesis in a much better manner. In fact I put "book" in quotes because it doesn't read at all like a veritable book to me. Think of it more as a collated series of "musings", "anecdotes" and "wikipedia" citations, because those are a shockingly large section of the thing, whatever you wish to call it. Let me list the ways, if you are not convinced that this is a book not worth buying. I will leave quotes out of "book" in case you still wish the opposite to be true.

1) Poor Presentation: This is a short book, like the others, so your dollars per page is quite high. Also, the concept of outliers is mentioned in the beginning somewhat superficially, and then it is mentioned at the end. However, this is a superficial treatment of the term. What is its history, in statistical theory, in the social sciences, in modern society? When did the concept of the outlier arise? Conversely, when and how did the concept of "normalcy" arrive? Instead of an interesting treatment of this general concept, the book instead reads as a few slightly connected but really disjointed essays on a sundry assortment of topics. It is almost as if Gladwell wandered in the social science section of Border's bookstore, picked them up, skimmed them and wrote a book review of each one. Then smack on one word "outliers", and there we have another bestseller! It consists more of collating wikipedia entries and other, superior works into a dime store novel. Now onto wikipedia....

2) Most of the citations here are from wikipedia! I know, it is an important internet source, but to flip in the bibliography and see a morass of urls looks and seems very lazy. In other words, the bibliography reveals how superficial the full analysis actually is. Also, much of the news sources are just online slate articles, etc. It appears a few interviews were conducted for the book, but these are not mentioned, and in fact the interviews add very, very little to the book's actual content. For example, he interviews the "smartest man in the world," Chris Langan, but the interview consists of quips that appear identical to youtube clips of Langan. He also interviews Bill Gates, but the actual content mentioned in the book is treated much better in a biography of Gates. Ditto with Gladwell's discussions of the Beatles and Oppenheimer. Read those biographies if you want something good, or read the Amazon book reviews, since Gladwell's treatment of them is far more superficial, covering a few pages on each topic before he breezes onto the next. I would guess that a full 80 percent of the book's contents come from available online content. The rest of the material really just comes from one nice book, Annette Lareau's "Unequal Childhoods," a far superior book if you want a deep look at social inequality. Then there are about three economics articles that look at 1) age and educational attainment, 2) age and sports, and 3) summer school inequalities. Google scholar will provide just as much detail, or perhaps a wikipedia article on the achievement gaps in schooling. In short, the research is superficial and it betrays a writer who isn't really willing or able to dig deep into the material to provide us with something new or informative. Do a wikipedia search, folks, and you will find a lot more than this mini-book offers.

3) This book does not consider ANY exceptions, and it involves almost no critical thinking on the part of the author himself. Instead, scientific findings from a few papers are uncritically taken as gospel. This is dangerous and it constitutes bad social science. Knowledge is a SYNTHESIS of many, many studies, since statistical correlations can exist by accident. Beyond this, some of the arguments don't make very much sense. This is particularly true when considering the "cultural legacy" arguments on Asian kids and ability. Somehow, he has a disquisition on rice paddies and we are supposed to conclude that this is why Asians are good at math. The problem is that this argument was made earlier by Max Weber - only he was claiming that the cultural legacy of Protestantism was crucial - and he was explaining why Europeans were so successful in art, science, industry, and war. Oh, and I forgot, he was talking about society until the early 20th century. So who's right, Gladwell or Max Weber... or neither? No evidence is cited for these kinds of advantages, and Gladwell's purely cultural legacies argument is unconvincing. For a better account read Jared Diamond's books, which brings me to the fourth point.

4) There are many books that address similar issues in a much better fashion. My advice: go to a bookstore, look at a few of the books Gladwell cites, and then buy those books intead. For example, read any popular account in inequality. Read Johnathan Kozel's "Savage Inequalities." Read Lareau's book "Unequal Childhoods," which Gladwell himself states in the bibliography is a wonderful book. Read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." On the opposite of "Outliers" read Kevin O'Keefe's interesting book, "The Average American." On randomness in our lives, read "Black Swan." What do these books have in common? They include a) original research (archival, history, or journalistic data), b) deeper analysis, and c) actual engagement of other writers on the topic. Gladwell, in this company is neither a social scientist, a journalist, or a deep thinker.

So what is Gladwell, and what are to make of his "book"? I strongly advise anyone not to read it, of if they have to, sit in the bookstore for about 20 minutes and read the intro, the conclusion, and skim the rest. Then leave the book on the shelf, go home, and wait for Amazon to send you any other book on a similar topic. You will feel much less empty and you will have read a much better book than this. Gladwell's account is an odd sundry collection of musings, flitting from one unrelated topic to another, and which consists of neat soundbites of info. There is no underlying "thread," and the themes he addresses aren't clearly illustrated or well argued. In my view, Gladwell gets paid WAY too much to do what he does. If I had to characterize his vocation based on my reading of this book, I would say that he is like the Matt Drudge of book writing: he collates from the internet (mostly) a series of sundry assorted articles to which he contributes nothing save a flashy title page and one source to glance at it. The bold letters, the wild exclamations appear to be something new, but after reading this book you will likely feel more like one of the visitors to P.T. Barnum's museums. The sign exclaiming that an exotic "Egress" is around the corner is nothing more than what it was all along: a door out, with nothing at all inside the museum. Similarly, the title to Gladwell's "anectodology" is nothing more than an empty dictionary definition slapped haphazardly on a random collection of citations. There is nothing more than that absurd title. I should say that Malcolm Gladwell is one lucky guy to pull off getting this book published and sold. He is making millions, so why should he care? The book is an outlier for sure; unfortunately, it's quality is on the far left side of the curve, while the sales is pushing much to far to the right.

The construction of the book meshes well with its organization and lends itself successfully to the study of our national deficit throughout our history. Packed with figures and facts related to the federal budget, the stock market, the GDP, Social Security, et al., I.O.U.S.A is a refreshing look at the state of affairs in our county, and moreover, how it relates to the rest of the world market.

A very good read for accountants and novices alike, I.O.U.S.A. will make you take a step back and analyze not only our country's spending, but our own personal spending habits as well.

I can't get as excited about global warming as Friedman has. First half of book paints worse-case scenarios in my opinion and is very tiresome reading - very repetetive and overdone with metaphors. Solutions in latter half of book are interesting, but are they all possible or necessary? Am usually a big fan of Friedman's recent op-eds, so a bit disappointed with the book.

This is a very enjoyable book, particularly for those hoping to get a "feel" for how Buffett has lived his life, over his many years.

What it WON'T do is go into any practical depth as to how he evaluates an investment decision. High-level generalities, yes, specifics, no.

Still, it's a great read. His early (9-13yrs old) business dealings.....his first stab at stock investing.....his first date.....etc.etc......on to the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" existence that he has enjoyed for probably 2 decades now. Hint: yes, he likes hamburgers, non-styling clothes, and his house in Omaha, but he also likes jet-setting and hanging out with the movers and shakers of the world. All while doing multi-billion-dollar-deals.

If you want to learn investing, go elsewhere.....unless you have never heard of "the power of compounding" or "buy with a margin of error" or "don't trade, buy and hold"....etc.

Well written and easy to follow description of the characters behind the events during the FDR administration. If you look for a comprehensive book about the Great Depression, its causes and consequences, you will not find it in this book. However, for readers already knowledgeable on those events, it is a great supplement of information. If you want to grasp the characters of the time, this book is a must.

William Proxmire's tradition of Fleece Awards is seriously demeaned by this half-effort. Fleeced was accepted as public servant and politician misuse of taxpayer funds. Even with the subtitle suggesting this would be more than that it really does not show how the public is being fleeced Far too much is the author's unjustified predictions of federal actions under a president Obama which largely discounts Mr.Obama's actual statements. Another major part alleges that American people and corporations are supporting the terroist support activities of, largely, Iran. This section first buys into the Bush administration's fearmongering regarding the Iranian government without any investigation or justification and than proceeds to describe a variety of business activities which have no direct effects of terrorism support and which certainly have nothing to do with the American people being "fleeced" Finally, a great deal of the book describes various sales and business development activities of American lobbying firms with foreign governments. While it is certainly the desire of some of the foreign governments to fleece the American people by purchasing the expensive services, there is virtually no description of the actual inappropriate expenditures resulting from the lobbying activities bought. I should have been warned that a rant was coming by the subtitle rather than a fair and extensive investigation of the facts of fleecings.

Taleb wants to tell us about 'Black Swans' - highly improbable events that have a disproportionate impact - and the subject couldn't be more timely, in light of the global financial crisis, and especially in view of his (2006) comments on the precarious state of Fannie Mae. He makes the point that much statistical theory (and certainly economic modeling) assumes normally-distributed data, whereas the real world ("Extremistan" in his parlance) contains significant outlier events that can create havoc with models - and, as we have seen, with shareholder value.

Another bonus is that he is widely-read, widely-traveled, and eclectic in his sources. So he should be worth listening to. Unfortunately, he spends most of the book telling us about himself, and in particular how only he and a select few academics (Benoit Mandelbrot comes in for particular praise) really 'get it' as far as probability is concerned. He is a self-described 'erudite' whose exotic background (Lebanese Greek Orthodox, with several languages) gives him special insight that more pedestrian practitioners lack. Taleb spends much of the book reiterating how fraudulent, foolish or ignorant most economists, mathematicians and philosophers are; and how 'NNT' - as he prefers to call himself - has, through his empirical work as an options trader and his wide reading, achieved insights that the Nobel laureates have missed. (Nobel laureates are especially scorned.)

Apart from the self-aggrandizing and repetitive nature of his prose, the book's main failings are that Taleb tries but does not succeed in making the case that stock-market returns are fractal in nature (sorry, Dr Mandelbrot - this was discredited some time ago), and he offers virtually no useful advice on the central problem he raises. That is, given that Black Swans are so far outside our normal experience that they cannot be readily modeled or predicted, how should be prepare ourselves for the worst (or the best)? Taleb's answer: think outside the box, pursue potentially 'good' Swans, and hedge against bad ones. Oh, and 'don't be a sucker'.

I was - I paid money for his book.

I have used this book/test many times and believe it to be a real tool for helping individuals and groups focus on strengths rather than weaknesses. There is a Proverb in the Bible that says something like, "Do you see a man skilled in his work?" In other words, the best at what he/she does? "That man will stand before kings."
The premise of focusing on the gifts God has specifically given you and teaming up with others so they can use their strengths where you are weak is how I believe God meant things to be.

Jim Collins and his team of researchers have surveyed over 1,400 companies, systematically analysed 6,000 publicly available articles, and carried out numerous face to face interviews with senior managers. The finding, the single most important factor to the health of a company - Leadership. The author asserted that they purposely steer away from such attribute as there are no shortage of business books paying the same platitude.

Every company vision statement reads like the next one. When did anyone last read a company which doesn't claim its employee is its greatest asset ? Yet, most see it fit to outsource its most critical function - finding the "right people". If every great company gets it right, there wouldn't be much of a recruitment industry. Recruitment agents will becomes redundant. It is the responsibility of every employee to find the right co-workers. Wait, isn't Google doing exactly that ? Jack Welch, John Chambers, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have all said their main job was to find the right people. Hire the right people first, then create a position to suit the person. Find passionate people, find people with integrity, find someone who would run the company like he/she owns it, hire this person straight away. This is how the author puts it,

"Widen your definition of "right people" to focus more on the character attributes of the person and less on specialised knowledge. People can learn skills and acquire knowledge, but they can not learn the essential characters traits that make them right for your organisation."

Since the publication of Good to Great it has attracted some criticism, primarily for its selection of what's on the Great company list. Much of the companies have since fallen on hard time, a few short years after its publication. Those views are some what misplaced. Good to Great doesn't give investment advice. It study the companies and the people that runs them, and dismissed a few myths along the way. Great leaders are often media shy, less worry about management "buy in" and much prefer hearing the truth, and definitely less charismatic than the media like to portray. A CEO should be working for the good of the company, and less about building his/her own personal profile. The big personality, the management superstar, the hyper arrogant (often misunderstood as self confidence) work against an environment in which employee are encouraged to take calculated risks, and find innovative solutions.

Ted likens himself to Rhett Butler from Gone with the wind, which coincidently is one of the longest movies made in its time. The only negative I can come up with for this book is that the book is a bit short for such a remarkable story. The extra stories by various people serve to present the reader with a few new angles, something rarely done.
Lets call on Ted to write another and add all those parts that got edited out. Then we can call it maximum fun...