“No one likes a deal more than me” -Michael Emerald, CFA
We’re seeing a resurgence of terrorism, particularly in Europe. I’m choosing my words generously, since most reading this will feel that it never dissipated. Fair enough. I’ve seen over the years increased efforts to have surveillance, security checks, improved metal detectors, greater airline scrutiny, and greater regulations in crowd control and airline travel. The problem is that law enforcement has to do its job right every time to prevent terrorist acts, while a terrorist only needs to do his (mostly his) job only once.
Logically this is a problem since as the amount of surveillance and defense increases, life becomes more and more uncomfortable for civilians, while terrorists only need to go to where the surveillance is the weakest. And in a world with 7 billion people, it’s not hard to find such a spot.
The solution, I feel, lies in identifying the reasons terrorists are incentivized to join terrorist groups, namely ISIS, and then countering those reasons. I won’t go into the reasons in depth, but from what I’ve read it’s related to the promise of a better economic life, drugs, self-empowerment, and personal support.
Countering those motivating factors might entail a foreign policy that helps further the economies not providing satisfaction to its civilians. Anything beyond that is beyond my expertise, though a sense a good foreign policy committee could come up with some great ideas.
Terrorism is global. So any solutions should be made in concert with other countries, primarily those with a mindset similar to the United States.
Why two question marks in the title? Because the quick answer is “damned if I know”. I do have a few semi-formed conclusions, however, see if you agree with them:
So, here’s my recommendation. When you are dealing with a 3 year old and they throw the toy you tell them not to. When the 3 year old then throws it again you tell him that he’s going to be punished if he throws it again. When he throws it the 3rd time, you pick him up off his feet, put him in bed, and despite all the whining, wailing and complaining, that’s it. That’s what you do.
In other words, we say that we won’t tolerate nuclear missile tests. Done. Did that. Next we draw the line…or more exactly the president and his staff draw the line on what constitutes over-the-line. An attack on a US possession, plan or ship would probably be considered over the line. Then, you let the generals recommend a course of action for taking military action. What is best I leave to them, not me. But at that point they’ve been forewarned, the world agrees something must be done (whether they say so publicly or not), and we do it.
Michael Emerald, CFA
Owner and Wall Street Analyst
Performance Business Design
…and if you aren’t, this just may get you there. The 30% of smaller businesses that last 10 years and more.
Attached is my report
A common issue nowadays is understandably global warming, with the big question being are we, or are we not guilty of causing the warming of the planet? While no expert on the subject, with my science background (physics) and being a longtime reader of Scientific American, my own feeling is this: global warming is inevitable…
…BUT we can certainly aggravate the process by emitting carbon dioxide (or whatever) and doing whatever bad acts result in global warming.
Thus, my conclusion is that it is useless to curtail everything in order to stop global warming. It’s going to happen. It’s a natural cycle. But, on the other hand, it doesn’t help to act to aggravate it. An analogy? Eventually we are all doomed to die, but it is our responsibility to live well in the meantime, and to prolong our lifetimes in REASONABLE manners. To act as though we can live eternally by doing everything perfectly is delusional. Likewise, to reduce emissions to zero and take other acts that harm our lifestyles is delusional.
Have a great week,
Wall Street analyst and owner, Performance Business Design
IMAGINATION PARK BUSINESS PERFORMANCE: 57% July 2017
ASSET PERFORMANCE FACTORS (all are 1 to 10)
COMPETITIVE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RISKS 2 I’m not an industry expert here, but I have to believe there are a lot of content producers selling to Hollywood studios.
PRODUCT MIX 10
They have a well-chosen blend of music, script, all tailored to the new environment for movie production. Makes sense.
PRODUCT VALUE 3
Sounds good, though I have to believe the writer-in-the-basement, armed with a computer and software, can also produce original content cheaply.
Still, there ties to both people and places (namely India) is noteworthy While I resist thinking this way, the fact that none of 20 content packages haven’t been sold yet tells me it is a rocky road
MARKETPLACE (supply/demand, financing environment) 10 Very timely, given that major studios are craving cheaper content
PEER VALUATION 10
This is an original story. All the others are enormous companies.
BUSINESS STRATEGY (and operations) 5
Sound, though I’d like to here more nuts and bolts detail of selling the packages and getting the new venture launched.
MANAGEMENT (Ownership, g&a) 10
G&A of 700,000 is 8% of Market Value which isn’t low (I prefer 5%).
Although, this is mostly because of the low valuation.
Personalities ar appropriate for the Hollywood world FINANCIAL STRATEGY (cash, overhang) 5 Cash to last less than a year with little talk of additional financing isn’t good.
Minimal option warrant overhang, about 10% The previous balance sheet was a mess. This is both good and bad. The good is that the new CEO seems to know how to run a company.
MARKETING AND OPERATIONS (including project management) 2 Not enough detail on timelines and milestones No discussion of marketing, sales and ramping up staff