A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won’t vote for Trump if he’s the eventual nominee.

I just want to put something in perspective.

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

For More:http://ziadabdelnour.net/the-coming-balance-of-power

Thank you,

Activist investors: Publicly listed companies fear them. Corporate governance pundits generally do not trust them. Retail investors quietly applaud them, and most laymen do not understand them. However, it is clear that in today’s complex corporate world, we need them. Activist investors may be the only players in the game that can effectively “Occupy Wall Street”.

We have entered the twilight zone when it comes to corporate governance. The zone where many Boards bury their head in the sand when it comes to breaches in compliance, as in the case of HSBC and the tax evasion scandal of February 2015. Certain Boards passively bow to the dictates of executive management, throwing all accountability on the corporation-as-entity, with no individual responsibility. All other stakeholders, from shareholders, to suppliers, to workers, to humble taxpayers are left to peck at what is left of net worth after the share price dives, and are left to fork out money for regulation and reconstruction.

To be fair, in the recent past activist investors have been noted for short-termism. Short-termism is the process by which an activist fund may coerce target companies to conduct strategies that may yield high profit in the short term, but that may be detrimental to company performance in the long term. For instance, it is common practice for activist funds to demand significant reduction in Research & Development activities; yet, R&D is needed for long term competitive and innovative advancement.

For More: http://www.financialpolicycouncil.org/blog/activist-investor-true-ally-corporate-governance/

Thank you,

Investors and people in the business world need to be aware of world events and the impact they have on their business outcomes. Recent events of which we should all be aware are:

• The Russian-Turkish Rivalry
• The Apparent Steadying of the European Economy
• The Death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
• Prison Riot in Mexico City
• The Northwards Spread of the Vika Virus
• Trade Dispute between Russia and Ukraine
• Rapid Changes in the Syrian Civil War
• Economic, Security and Political Developments in Central Africa
• Growing Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
• The Weakening of the Indian Rupee
• Growing Stresses between North and South Korea
• Poor Performance of Japan’s Economy
• The Persistent Decline of Oil and Gas Prices
• American Political Chaos

For More: http://www.financialpolicycouncil.org/blog/world-cracked-nutshell-things-happen/

Let me start by saying that I am a physicist and have been involved with many of the leading U.S. research facilities over the years — Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia Laboratories, just to name two.  I also directed the Socrates Project under the Reagan administration.  So the quick knee-jerk reaction to the title that “I don’t understand research and development or the value of technology” holds no water at all.  Please don’t even try to argue this point.

Research and development (R&D) does not equate to a competitive advantage in the marketplace or on the military battlefield.  Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is a worthwhile pursuit.  Totally agree.  But it is conceptually flawed and detrimental to the objective — being competitive — when companies and governments use the need to increase economic and military might as justification for higher expenditures on R&D.  But yet this is the rapidly rising battle cry among the leading thinkers in Congress, the Pentagon, academia, think tanks, and the press — “Raise R&D funding levels, and America’s future will be secured.”  How so far from the truth.

One highly critical set of decision makers who suffers from this R&D is the key to competitiveness thinking is the leadership in the office of the Secretary of Defense.  But this was all avoidable.

ForMore: http://www.financialpolicycouncil.org/blog/will-stop-blindly-pissing-away-money-rd-rat-hole/

Thank you,

When Will We Stop Blindly Pissing Away Money Down the R&D Rat Hole?
By Michael C. Sekora – Past Director of the Socrates Project, President of Quadrigy, Inc. affiliated with Operation U.S. Forward

Let me start by saying that I am a physicist and have been involved with many of the leading U.S. research facilities over the years — Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia Laboratories, just to name two.  I also directed the Socrates Project under the Reagan administration.  So the quick knee-jerk reaction to the title that “I don’t understand research and development or the value of technology” holds no water at all.  Please don’t even try to argue this point.

Research and development (R&D) does not equate to a competitive advantage in the marketplace or on the military battlefield.  Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is a worthwhile pursuit.  Totally agree.  But it is conceptually flawed and detrimental to the objective — being competitive — when companies and governments use the need to increase economic and military might as justification for higher expenditures on R&D.  But yet this is the rapidly rising battle cry among the leading thinkers in Congress, the Pentagon, academia, think tanks, and the press — “Raise R&D funding levels, and America’s future will be secured.”  How so far from the truth.

ForMore:http://www.financialpolicycouncil.org/blog/will-stop-blindly-pissing-away-money-rd-rat-hole/

Security Essential for Financial Transactions Online

Now that the Cyberworld is upon us, most of us do most, if not all, of our financial transactions online. Long gone is the day when most of us paid our bills by check or delivered a check to our brokers to invest for us. Now we pay our bills online, either on the biller’s Website, or on our bank’s Website. We don’t write checks – we transfer funds. We rely on the security of the Web site with which we are dealing to protect the security of the transaction. Most of us make sure that the “HTTPS” designation is at the beginning of the address for every Website on which we conduct transactions or share sensitive information. We maintain security and privacy settings on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social Websites where we publish. We have firewalls for our computer systems, our personal computers, and our home networks. We have anti-virus software and run it rigorously. We have our Outlook set for appropriate levels of security and use spam settings to segregate anything that looks like spam, knowing that in the spam box we can see the REAL addresses behind the links in emails.

We know enough not to click on any link in any email, instead copying and pasting the address into our browsers. We have our browsers set for appropriate levels of security and privacy, and use a secure browser like Firefox or Tor. We have our networks set for security against invaders. We understand that the weakest link is usually the employee sitting at his keyboard, and have established suitable policies, procedures and penalties regarding cybersecurity for our employees. We use, and require our employees to use, “strong passwords” and change them often.

For More: http://www.financialpolicycouncil.org/blog/investors-can-boost-cybersecurity-back-basics/

Thank You,