We'll Always Have 2007

I'm checking out until the second week in January. Blackberry yes. Computer no. And a forced break from blogging. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you for participating in the online conversation, and sharing a little bit of yourselves with me. I have certainly tried to share some of myself with you. I'd guess you'd have a pretty good feel for me after 18 months of being out there. Hard to believe that 2007 is only my first full year of  blogging from wire to wire. It feels like it has been years. It is now such a part of me.

To those who read IA and maybe commented whom I either pissed off, inadequately stated or defended my positions or just plain disappointed, thanks for taking the time to read my stuff. I try my best and am true to myself, but I can certainly understand why not everyone might agree with me. To those who generally get me and where I am coming from, and are pretty happy with my output in 2007, I appreciate you as well. The private notes of support I've gotten throughout the year have been amazing, and I've tried to answer each and every one. I apologize if I've missed a few or haven't been as timely as I might have liked, but I was somewhat overextended in my for-profit and not-for-profit activities. I'll hopefully get that more under control during 2008, but I doubt it.

2007 has been a great year for me and for this blog. I did lots of fun stuff at work, met dozens of amazing people, continued to learn every day, saw my kids grow a year older and continue to wow me with their passion, intensity and beauty, and further deepen my relationship with my closest and best friend, my wife. More of you read me this year than in 2006, when I was really just a newbie. And apparently some people in mainstream media read me as well, as their kind notes and requests for comments and perspectives were welcome diversions throughout the year. But most importantly the sense of community I've gotten from blogging continued to grow, and I've developed real relationships with several readers of this blog who are bloggers and businesspeople themselves. I never could have imagined how blogging would serve to build my community and web of relationships in such a powerful way. And every day I continue to be surprised and impressed by the power of this medium.

Anyway, thanks again and I'll see you next year. Feel free to send me a note, as always. And all the best to you and your families for a fantastic 2008.

From the Mailbag: When Was I The Happiest in My Life?

Just as I was pondering an end-of-year post, I received the following email from one of my readers:

For quite a long time, I have followed your blog. It has become a habit for me to read your articles for Wallstreet and tech issues. I can almost feel your enthusiasm radiating from my screen. There is a question that I want to ask you.

When were you happiest in your life?

Suffice it to say, this question sparks a wide range of thoughts and spawns even more questions. Like is "happiest" in this context work happiness, personal happiness or overall happiness? And is it possible to separate them? Also, for me happiness is very phase-dependent, as the things that made me most happy when I was 22 are different than those things that get me going at 42. The introduction of a partner, a best friend and a wife over 20 years ago changed the prism through which I view happiness, as well as the birth of my children 10 years and 7 years ago. This makes the assessment of happiness even more complicated. For starters, I will answer the question in three ways: personal happiness derived from self, personal happiness derived from others, and professional happiness. After doing this, I will seek to pinpoint the time in my life when I was happiest.

Personal happiness derived from self

That one is easy: age 27, right after graduating from business school. Ages 24-27 was a time of intense self-reflection, grappling with the transition from college to the work world and then on to being a true professional. Further, I had never been a dedicated student in my earlier years, pretty much freeloading on my ability and organizational skills to achieve at a high level in the absence of real effort. So the time I left my full-time banking job to consult and attend Columbia full-time was filled with excitement, opportunity and angst. What did I want to do? Who did I want to be? How did I envision my life 3, 5, 10 years forward? What about work/life balance? All of these thoughts permeated my thinking, leading me to make decisions that ultimately set the course of my post-grad school life. Decisions that, in retrospect, were pretty good and about which I am very proud. I actually put forth real effort in grad school, thoroughly getting into my classes and enjoying my professors, my peers and the curriculum. And this showed in my performance and what I was able to take away from coursework that influences me to this day. I cannot say the same for undergrad. It was not the school's fault. It was my own laziness and immaturity. I chose to go into Sales & Trading and not banking as I was drawn to the math of the markets, the meritocratic culture and the fact that objective results were the driver of the domain, a culture not driven by how many hours you spend at the office but how well you perform.

So upon graduation from Columbia and with my derivatives job in hand, I had a sense of achievement and confidence that I had never felt before. I had taken a chance (by getting off the Wall Street bandwagon and going to school at my own behest), worked hard (both by working part-time and attending school full-time, and achieving at a high level) and was now ready to move my life forward in a confident, directed, proactive way. I was never more proud of myself than I was at that moment in time.

Personal happiness derived from others

That one is also pretty easy: age 31, right before the birth of my first child. I might have said when I first met my wife at a bar in Ann Arbor at age 21, or sometime during our courtship, or even the day we got married. But there was something so special, so deep and so other-worldly about the time just before our son Andrew was born that stands out. My wife and I had been together 10 years by then (married for four of them). We were very, very comfortable with each other. We knew each other's rhythms, we could finish each other's sentences, there was an already well-established "shared brain" that existed between us reflecting the maturity and intimacy of our relationship. All that early-relationship uncertainty, craziness and volatility had long since left, leaving in its place confident love, passion and deep friendship. Good stuff. And now there was the imminent addition of a third member to our unit, and our lives would never be the same again. A person that was part of her, part of me, and both of us. As her body changed during pregnancy and as she got more beautiful by the day, the feelings of love, warmth, and permanence in our relationship wrapped me up like warm velvet.

In many ways this was the happiest time of my life, a time that can never be reclaimed by any event because of its uniqueness in time and space. It was what it was. And what it was will never leave my brain or my heart as long as I live.

Personal happiness derived from work

Now this is really hard. There are two distinct times that stand out. The first is when I was 30 and a derivatives pro at Citibank. I had recently gotten a few industries to cover: health care and Media & Telecom. I had been given health care about six months earlier and had just gotten M&T, and was really coming into my own as a senior transactor. I had worked for the ultimate mentor for the first three years of my derivatives career, learning by his side, and then had the chance to do some stuff on my own. And false modesty aside, I did pretty damn well. I turned health care into a true partnership between banking and Sales & Trading, advising clients on comprehensive liability management strategies in tandem with the banking team. It was a potent combination and quite simply, we rocked it. I also began to chip away at some big, legacy M&T clients that were in need of help but simply hadn't looked at us as trusted advisers. And now some of them did. And we did some excellent monetization transactions as well as buyback-related hedging strategies. I really began to see how I could cover the client base and make money in a way that hadn't been done previously. I was making it happen. And at the end of the year I got paid well for the work I had done. It was a dizzying year with a payoff to match. It was so unreal to me. And I was very proud.

The second time is when I was 34. It was my first full year at Deutsche building the Strategic Equity Transactions Group. I had made some key hires over my first year and now, in 2000, it was time to make some serious wood. We had gone from almost nothing in 1998 (I wasn't there yet; and DB basically razed the BT derivatives team in the wake of that acquisition) to a nice business during my first eight months on the job and the table was set for me and my team to deliver. We had planted lots of seeds in 1999, both transaction-specific as well as relationship-building that would lead to IOUs when deals needed to get done. The stars and planets aligned in 2000, and between a handful of mega-monetization transactions as well as several billion-dollar buyback hedging transactions we just killed it. The degree of our success was not expected, and the tight bond we developed with the trading desk helped create a culture that was both highly efficient and fun. I had built the team, mentored the team and gotten great people who delivered big, and as the catalyst for this effort I was also very, very proud.

The economic disparity between the two situations is stark: in the Citibank situation I took home less than 1/10th of what I got paid at Deutsche. The value of the deals done were simply much, much smaller. But if I had to pick when I was truly happiest, it is when I got my bonus after my breakout year at Citibank. It really wasn't about the money. The money was the symbol of what really mattered: I had arrived.

Conclusion

So when was I the happiest? It depends. But if I absolutely, positively had to choose when I was the happiest in my life, I'd probably have to say right now. I've seen a lot, done a lot and accomplished a lot over the years. I've got a family whom I adore. I've got the greatest friends a person could have. I've got my health (knock on wood). I've made a little money. I've been both extremely fortunate and helped make some of that good fortune through hard work, persistence and sheer stubbornness. And notwithstanding my not-so-cheery view of the world at the moment, I do have confidence in our ability to come together as people and to make the world better for our children. So with that in mind, best to all of you for a happy and healthy 2008. And may the upcoming year be the happiest in your life and those of your loved ones.

2007 in Review: The United States

The US is in trouble, and the trends are not good. The question is, with the mega-trends that are firmly in place – rapid economic expansion across Asia, a rapidly depleting supply of fossil fuels, a global threat to sustainable growth, and an aging population – is the US on an inexorable path downward that can only be checked and not stopped? A home-grown mortgage crisis and its worldwide ripple effects, together with a slowing economy, inflationary pressures, a war and a plummeting greenback now severely challenge American policy-makers.

The US is caught in a vicious cycle that impacts the economics, politics and foreign policies of its allies and its enemies, and poses a crisis for not just itself but for the world. With its house in fiscal disarray, the US has precious few options for stabilizing a weak and much-derided dollar. Raise rates, and it threatens the domestic economy, a gravely-damaged banking sector and further hastens the downward trend of housing prices. Drop rates, and it threatens foreign investment in dollar-denominated assets, may not jump-start domestic consumption and, in fact, further weaken the dollar in the process. There are no easy answers for a country with a deficit measured in the trillions, spending hundreds of billions annually on unproductive military activities, suffering its worst banking crisis in a generation and nearing the end of a 25 year bull run.

It wasn’t that long ago that observations of a “flattening world” dominated the US discussion, offering both risks and opportunities for a productive, (seemingly) healthy US economy bent on capitalizing on its culture of innovation. China, India, Russia and others offered deep pools of intellectual capital that could be tapped by US innovators to move their ideas forward in a highly flexible, cost-effective manner. Two years hence and the US dialog with the world has changed markedly, reminiscent of the 1970s when rocketing energy prices, rampant inflation, crushing interest rates and its conflict with Iran cast a pall upon market sentiment and the mood of the entire nation. Question such as “Are the Arabs going to buy the US?” and “Is the dollar ever going to recover?” were the issues of the day. Just like today.

As bad as things seem, the US is a tough, resilient country of innovators. It will take hard work to get the US back on track. Restoring confidence in its financial institutions. Taking the bitter pill of a real estate correction that will provide a healthy base off which to resume growth. Committing to addressing the politically-sensitive overhang of Social Security and health care costs, which if left unchecked will cost its children and grandchildren a chance at economic prosperity. Fixing its own house is the only way for the US to restore its position as a credible, thoughtful, and respected leader in an increasingly balanced global stage. The time for painful change is now, for the betterment of the US and the rest of the world.

Alphabet Soup and the Subprime Crisis

M-LEC. Super SIV. SWF. Kind of reminds me of banking "reform" in the late 1980's - SAIF, BIF and other ridiculous acronyms representing entities that ultimately did little to help the underpinnings of the S&L crisis. The story of the day is the abandonment of the M-LEC structure, supported in spirit by the US Treasury but ultimately driven by the realities of the private sector. Some are saying "what a dumb idea - of course it was going to die." From my perspective those voices don't really understand what is going on here. And of course I do.

As I said from the beginning, the M-LEC proposal was never conceived of or structured as a "bailout" in the conventional sense, implying that Government funds were going to be used to prop up an ailing market. The Treasury Department certainly served as a catalyst to get the discussion going, but it was only going to work if the private sector bought in - both metaphorically and with hard dollars. And this type of buy-in was required of both the SIV issuers and the potential M-LEC investors, two constituencies with their own agendas and stresses. The metaphor I used to conceptualize the M-LEC structure was akin to the "good bank/bad bank" model of yesteryear, where the best assets could be pooled and liquidity raised against them, bridging the gap between either the sale or recovery of the worst assets that remained on-balance sheet. Bottom line, the Treasury's catalytic actions got issuers and investors the world over to focus on the magnitude of the problems facing the SIV vehicles and their sponsors, and it is this that represents the true value of Mr. Paulson's initiative. Was this his endgame? Who knows.  But in any event, it worked.

But as the M-LEC moved closer to reality another path towards resolution presented itself - the injection of capital by SWFs directly into the ailing institutions, enabling SIV assets to written down and something approaching economic reality to be reflected on financial institutions' balance sheets. Citigroup. Morgan Stanley. Merrill Lynch. UBS. And this list will get longer, believe me. The confluence of massive sovereign liquidity in Asia, the marquee names of the institutions willing to receive investment, the ability of the SWFs to actually help the financial institutions' with the exploding business opportunities in the region, Saudi Prince Bin Talal's high-profile success with his Citi investment back in the early 1990s - all of these contributed to the development of the on-balance sheet SWF alternative to the off-balance sheet M-LEC alternative. The private market has spoken, and this is the solution that was deemed best. Congratulations to Mr. Paulson, the financial institutions' receiving investment, the SWFs and investors in these institutions' and their SIV vehicles. This was a pretty good answer to a really difficult problem.

But before anybody claims victory, let's keep a few key things in mind. The problem is far from solved. Liquidity has not yet returned to the market. There is still not a clear bottom to where these mortgage and associated derivatives portfolios will ultimately realize value. And it is this uncertainty that makes the SWFs investments so brave and so bold. Will Merrill need an additional $5 billion? Will Citigroup need another $10-$15 billion? UBS? $5-$10 billion more? Who knows. Maybe so. And where is that money coming from? Will political realities enable Asian SWFs to buy 20-25% of these damaged firms without causing a huge backlash?  I'm not so sure about that, and it's not a question I'd really like to be compelled to answer. I think we are maybe in the second inning of a game going into extra innings, with a lot of excitement, angst, fear, conflict and greed lying ahead.

If there is one thing we can take away from this SWF for M-LEC trade is that the Government really has limited tools at its disposal to deal with crisis once it has happened in such a massive, interconnected world. The real answer lies in prevention. And is it here that the US Government, the Federal Reserve and the SEC have failed so miserably. They should take a good, hard look in the mirror when doing a post-mortem of the sub-prime crisis. If they have any self-awareness at all they certainly won't like what they see.

A Kindle for a Kanoodle?

Nah, just a Kindle for the lovely Lindsay to use on Wallstrip tomorrow. The taping will be in NYC and she needs the device for show-and-tell. If you got the goods, you might even get a cameo on the show. So for all you aspiring vlog actors, take note. Send your availability to the furry Mr. Howard Lindzon at his blog. And make Lindsay a happy vlog queen this holiday season.

My Gloomy Thesis is Playing Out: Three from the Saturday NYT

I've been one of those on the stagflation bandwagon, deeply concerned about the weakness of the dollar, the likelihood of the Fed continuing to reduce rates in the face of locked-up credit markets, rising food and energy prices and persistent and rising deficits. This is a toxic macroeconomic cocktail I've written about and which has been the source of much worry. And to add insult to injury, a rash of economic statistics were released last week that generated articles this weekend that only served to reinforce my Droopy Dog attitude towards the US economic landscape. So I'm here to share the pain.

First, CPI shot up 0.8% in November, the largest jump since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. From Saturday's New York Times:

Higher prices, however, have begun to bubble up at the consumer and producer levels, government reports showed this week, complicating the policy calculus of the Federal Reserve as it tries to bolster the struggling economy.

********************

“This is the first time we really have seen these energy costs and food costs starting to get passed through into finished- goods pricing,” an investment strategist, Edward Yardeni, said. “It’s the first glimpse that it’s starting to spread more broadly.”

A rise in inflation leaves the Federal Reserve policy makers “walking a tightrope,” Mr. Yardeni said. Analysts said they expected the Fed to be more reluctant to cut rates as it tries to balance problems in the credit and housing market with the need to maintain price stability.

Bottom line, the Fed has precious little room for error given the confluence of rising prices and troubled credit markets. Continue to pump liquidity into the system by reducing rates, and run the risk of unleashing inflation after a two-decade hiatus. Hold the line on rates to stave off incipient upward price pressures, and face the threat of recession due to a heavily indebted consumer and a scared and unfriendly credit market. Choose your poison.

Next, even in the face of rising prices we have signs of an economic slowdown within export/import data. Also from Saturday's NYT:

The rate of increase in imports has begun to decline, and is now at its lowest level since 2002, when the economy was only slowly emerging from a recession. At the same time, export growth has remained strong, thanks to a buoyant world economy and a weaker dollar that has made American goods seem cheaper to overseas buyers.

********************

...the last time import volumes declined was in 2001 and 2002, which was also the most recent recession. The time before that, in 1990 and 1991, was another recession. In each of those cases, the figures fell into negative territory only after the recessions began.

After the 2001 recession ended, imports rose even faster than exports, leading to a rapid rise in the American trade deficit. But import growth peaked in August 2004 and has come down significantly since then.

Whether by coincidence or not, that was one month after the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index peaked. Americans who used their homes as piggy banks to finance consumption were less able to do so once home prices began to slip.

It seems pretty logical. A weak dollar makes domestic goods look cheap to foreigners, foreign goods expensive to those in the US, and even more expensive when a major source of US consumer purchasing power - home equity - is taking a big hit. This is a pattern that has been played out in the past and is being played out now. The question is when things will begin to turn. But between the weak fundamentals for the dollar and only being at the beginning of a great housing unwind, I can't see the current outlook changing markedly in the near term.

Finally, just to rub it in, overseas shoppers are engaging in a feeding frenzy over comparatively cheap US goods. From the Saturday NYT once again:

With the dollar near its lowest rate against the pound in 26 years, and its lowest rate against the euro ever, many Europeans are looking at the United States the way some Americans have long viewed Latin America and the Caribbean and, once upon a time, Europe — a cheap place to flex their strong currency.

The situation is more than a potential blow to Americans’ self-image, it could be a blow to the world economy as some central bankers worry about “currency tension,” and many countries move trillions of dollars out of their reserves and buy euros instead.

********************

But monetary authorities are not laughing. The dollar has been so low for so long, Europeans are worrying about how expensive their exports are becoming for American consumers when priced in dollars, and how much that hurts European growth.

Last month, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, warned that an appreciating pound and euro, combined with most oil-producing countries and China linking their currencies to the dollar, creates “great currency tension.”

Such tension could hurt the dollar further as countries like China, which holds the largest reserves of American currency outside the United States, see their dollar reserves sink in value and hurry to move them to other currencies. A Chinese official threatened to do that last month, though other leaders contradicted him.

********************

“The current currency system is quite fragile and will break down as it leads to imbalances and capital losses” among countries with dollar reserves, said Nouriel Roubini, a professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

It is still less clear whether one or several currencies will replace the dollar as the main reserve currency. “With the euro, the world has gained an alternative reserve currency but other currencies have also won in strength,” said Chris Munns, a lecturer at the London School of Economics.

Can you believe this? This totally sucks. The article did a pretty good job highlighting some of the big issues of the day and some of the very real concerns I have over the prospects for the US given its current spending patterns and economic policies. And it doesn't even begin to describe how the vibe in the US is beginning to feel a bit circa 1975-79, with sky-high rates, rising prices, a massive rise in Middle Eastern petro-wealth, tensions with the Muslim world and a US asset base essentially for sale. Sound familiar? We're not there yet, but do we want to be? I'd say not. Whether it was real estate, companies or art, it felt like the Middle East was taking over the US. The only difference today is that it is not only the Middle East who is buying but China and Russia as well. We've got to get it together, and quick. We incurred a lot of pain in the early 1980s to get us back on track, but get us back on track it did. We need to take some pretty bad-tasting medicine. But let's get it over with. Some fiscal responsibility, international diplomacy and common-sense immigration policies would be good places to start.

EXPERT NETWORKS: Where is the industry going?

Gerson Lehrman is the big dog, but vertical communities, vertical search engines and alternative information platforms like Monitor110 are moving reputation-based information discovery online. And now the ad-based Google Knol. Just where is this industry going? Who are the up-and-rising players, which models will prevail, and is it possible for anyone to knock Gerson Lehrman off of their formidable perch? I'd really like to know what you think.

********************

This is part of the experiment I mentioned in a post a few days ago. I have asked this question on LinkedIn, Facebook and now here, on my blog. I think this is a really important topic that warrants spirited, vibrant discussion, but I'm not sure which venue will serve to generate the most and best content. I guess we'll see. I'll report back.

Google Knol: NOT Setting the World on Fire

Google has become the new EF Hutton: when it speaks, people listen. So when I first heard about Google Knol I was curious and intrigued: a true competitor to Wikipedia? A new spin on expert networks? An easier way to discover high value content? These are all areas about which I have a high degree of interest and some degree of knowledge. But after reading the description on the Official Google Blog and thinking about it here is what I've concluded: NO BIG DEAL. Unless I am missing some big conceptual point here (which is always possible, of course), I don't see any benefits to creators of high-value content that don't already exist - and are perhaps manifest in better ways - through personal blogs and message forms, vertical search engines and Wikipedia. I know, going against the Google juggernaut risks intellectual humiliation and disdain, but is this merely an effort to devise and gain control of new sources of ad dollars? I mean, at its core, even in light of its stated mission, isn't this how Google makes money? And is this truly a vehicle for achieving the grand mission, (better) organizing all the world's information? Personally, I don't think so.

So using the illustration provided on the Google Blog - insomnia - consider these alternatives:

1. Wikipedia entry: Collaborative, multi-participant, human-edited definition
2. OrganizedWisdom WisdomCard: Domain-specific, expert-constructed vertical search result
3. ehealth Forum topic: Issue-focused, community discussion forum with expert participation
4. dr.greene.com article: Issue-focused, community questions with expert response

So let's consider the characteristics of each of these media and how they compare to Google Knol:

• Wikipedia: as close as we've gotten to aggregate knowledge. Social mission. Human-edited "wisdom of crowds" results. No advertising. No specific credit for entries. In my opinion, a fairly high-quality starting point for information discovery.
• OrganizedWisdom: vertical search for health and wellness. Social mission with commercial overlay. Human-constructed domain expert results. Targeted advertising and affiliate relationships. Specific credit for entries and payment for creating entries. High-quality  results. (Disclosure: I am an investor in OrganizedWisdom).
• ehealth Forum: issue-specific discussion board with expert participation. Social mission with commercial overlay. Targeted participation from community members of varying reputation. Targeted advertising. Community identities are known. Mixed results.
• dr.greene.com: issue-specific Q&A with expert response. Social mission with commercial overlay. Expert-moderated community discussion. Targeted advertising. Question submitters identified per instructions. High-quality results.

Now let's consider some of the key features of Google Knol:

1. Page owner ("author" in Google parlance) is known and gets full credit
2. Readers can suggest edits subject to owner acceptance
3. Ease of publishing/editing pages
4. Platform may give rise to multiple Knols on a single subject
5. Community ratings and reviews of specific pages
6. Ability to take advertising

Now let's consider my options first as a content creator, then as a content consumer:

• Content creator: First question: do I want recognition and do I want to make money? If no, then Wikipedia is a good place to start. I can contribute my knowledge in an easy lightweight manner, with an eye towards enhancing the world's knowledge. If yes, then Wikipedia isn't the place for me. So what are my options? I can start my own blog, sell my services to a vertical content aggregator or expert network willing to pay for my expertise or establish a Google Knol. If I start my own blog, I can build my own brand, my own site, use it is a robust platform not only for sharing expert insights but also for collaboration, sharing materials, commerce, etc. It is mine. And I can do with it what I please. It can be indexed. It can be linked to. I can generate ad revenue. My reputation will be reflective of who links to me, how many people subscribe to me and my overall traffic. Now if I sell my services to an expert network, I can get paid for my knowledge and the intensity of my involvement. I can also build brand and monetize this however I see fit over time. I don't control my own real estate as I do with a blog but I also don't need to maintain it, either. This is a very targeted, very parameterized way of monetizing my expertise. Or I can start a Google Knol. Starting a knol is easy, seemingly not unlike starting a blog. But why would others contribute to my knol as a source of knowledge (as opposed to discussion)? If I don't care about money or credit, am I really going to choose someone's knol over Wikipedia? And if I do care about money or credit, I'm not getting any of that from submitting an edit or addition to someone's knol so why do it? I really don't know. There will likely be competing knols on major topics of interest which may be good for the content consumer but not so great for the content creator. So from the content creation standpoint, I'm not sure I get it. Unless community involvement is not really what you're after and what you are really after is being indexed by Google, becoming known on a particular topic and having Google help you to generate ad revenue. Then I get it.

• Content consumer: If I am interested in better understanding insomnia on a general level, where am I going to go first? Depends on my level of knowledge. If I know of a good vertical search engine, I'll go there first because the information is going to be highly targeted, highly relevant and from reputable sources. If I don't, my backup would be Wikipedia. It may not be comprehensive, it may not be perfect, but it is going to give me a lot of information and links that are valuable and my lead me in the right direction. Would I choose a knol over a vertical search engine or Wikipedia? I'm not sure why. With many knols on a given topic I may be barraged with alternative views that could be more annoying than anything else, similar to doing a fairly unstructured search in Google that yields 85,000 results where the one best suited for me might be on page 86. Sure, there are community ratings of each knol, so I might simply decide to read the most highly rated knol in my area of interest. But depending upon the nature of the topic and the complexity of the issue, the community rating may or may not be reflective of the value of the information. If I go to a vertical search engine that is expert-powered, I know I am getting results from a highly reputable source. This is very valuable. With a knol, it is pure wisdom of crowds at work, which might not be the most comforting vehicle with which to gauge reputation depending upon the complexity of the topic.

So based on what I know, which is admittedly little, this is where I am coming out. I don't see Google Knol as either a threat to Wikipedia or almost any other information discovery medium, for that matter. But maybe I'm just missing it.

The Right Venue for Online Discussion?

This blog? My Facebook groups? A couple of very pointed but sensible comments to my recent post made one thing clear: that this blog is where I should look to spur active conversations, not my Facebook groups. I am frankly confused, and would like to share two comments from yesterday's post.

From Ian Wilson:

Why not just keep discussion centered on this blog? I am sure most of the people signed up to the facebook groups also read your blog.

Right now there does not seem to be any easy way to manage discussions around various web sites...so having them all in 1 place, your place, seems like the easiest way to keep the conversation flowing, imho.

Facebook is becoming more and more cluttered with spam daily, so much so that its cost of use is getting too steep for me, I cant find the signal for the noise. Does anyone else find that?

From Michael Sharon:

I completely agree with Ian. Encouraging conversation around your primary and most visited community - although it's in some respects a limited channel - is far more useful than trying to stimulate discussion within multiple sub-communities based around related topics on sites which have higher barriers to entry.

It may not be your fault that there hasn't been enough discussion in those groups, perhaps it's simply that the conversation and the platform that you have here is enough for most people, most of the time.

You mention fomenting an active dialogue which reminded me of this article about the User Generated Content myth over at Publishing 2.0 (link neutered! google it). I think the reality of the situation is that encouraging an active dialogue within any one of your groups would require a non-trivial investment in attention - which you've chosen (unsurprisingly) to spend at your main site here. For me, Facebook is less useful for high value, public dialogues simply because content within the group is not searchable (through Google or FB). If the intention is for the conversation to be private or limited to group members only, then I think FB is the tool for you, otherwise, keep it in the blogosphere.

I've got to say, Ian and Michael make a lot of sense. But as a test, I am going to run questions in both venues and see what happens. But after reflecting on it a bit, I do think they are right as my blog has far greater reach than my Facebook groups, and the goal of posing questions and stimulating discussion among my readers is to cast a wide net. So in order to raise a new question I had posed on my IA Capital Partners group to a broader audience, I am reproducing it for my blog readers here:

 

I am currently looking at deals related to online investing tools and resources, as well as gaming and gaming services. There are some others but these are the mega themes. I recently exited one of my companies in the online financial space, am helping work on strategic partnerships for another and just invested in a young integrated gaming entertainment company, Green Screen Interactive Software. I'd be interested in what others are seeing out there. Deal flow is very strong.

I've got lot of other questions rattling around that I will post soon but this is my question du jour. I'd love to know your thoughts. Thanks in advance for participating in what is hopefully a rich, interesting, interactive discussion.

My Use of Facebook Groups: IA Capital Partners and Information Arbitrage

I have done a woeful job using these groups to stimulate discussion. I tossed out a few questions early on, generated some interesting dialog, and then stopped. Stupid. Sorry about that. So here is my pledge. I will use best efforts going forward to do the following:

• IA Capital Partners Facebook group: Pose questions and offer commentary around what I am actually seeing in early-stage deal land, a land where I am very active and seeing a lot of stuff. I'll share ideas, trends, themes and memes, and would love group members to share their perspectives as well.

• Information Arbitrage Facebook group: Raise thematic questions and issues of interest to me around Wall Street and technology, and generate a hopefully vibrant discussion around these issues.

I'd also love it if group members started question and theme threads of their own around the concepts and meanings of these groups. I think Facebook groups can be a very powerful medium for an active, multi-threaded conversation. I just feel like I haven't done my part to foment an active dialog. My bad. I'll try to do better.