On the Record: Meg Whitman

Normally, I don’t read the San Francisco Chronicle. I read the New York Times & Wall Street Journal for my national news, and the San Jose Mercury News for local & high tech coverage. I’m not really sure why anyone actually reads the San Francisco Chronicle anymore, but I digress.

However, they have a great interview with Meg Whitman this week, and I think it’s something worth reading. It’s certainly the longest interview with Meg that I’ve seen in print this year, and it covers a lot of the topics that have been noteworthy in 2006.

ON THE RECORD: MEG WHITMAN

eBay, Garth Brooks, and Making Money On Inefficient Global Markets

(Part 1.  When finished, you should read Part 2.)

One of the reasons I love working for eBay is that I am constantly surrounded with interesting empirical evidence of how markets for physical goods behave. Today, I thought I’d share with you a single anecdotal example of how eBay creates opportunity from a very mundane retail product.

Yes, the product is a Garth Brooks DVD.

Well, to be more specific, it is the new, 2006, special-edition 5 DVD Garth Brooks “The Entertainer” set that comes in a collectible tin. It’s $19.96 at Wal-Mart, and there are two angles here. One, they are only going to make one million copies. Two, they are only available at Wal-Mart in the US.

There was a lot of press about this release, largely because I guess the 2005 edition had sold out quickly and led to a lot of pent-up demand for the product. On a lark, I dediced to order 10 copies from Walmart.com. Total cost, with tax & shipping was $238.77, so I was basically out $23.88 per DVD set.

When I placed this order, I had checked the completed auctions on eBay.com for “garth brooks the entertainer”, and I had seen sets going for as much as $39.99. So I figured I’d be able to make a few dollars selling these off.

However, by the time I received the DVDs, the average price on eBay.com had dropped to about $26, and I wasn’t sure I would make any money on these, after fees, with that type of price. After all, Walmart.com still hasn’t sold out, so I guess it is somewhat interesting that anyone was basically paying 30% over retail price for something that wasn’t in limited supply.

On a hunch, however, I decided to check out the completed auctions on some of eBay’s international sites. One of the amazing things about the eBay site is that it is integrated globally. With the same eBay account, I can log into any eBay site around the world and list an item. What I found was very interesting:

Now, these are live links, so what you see is going to be different than what I saw two weeks ago. But what I saw was this:

  • High volume in the US (over 50 listings), average price about $26
  • Medium volume in the UK (20 listings), average price about 35 pounds sterling.
  • Low volume in Germany (8 listings), average price about 50 Euro.
  • No volume in France. No one cares about Garth Brooks in France, I guess. 🙂

Wow. 35 pounds and 50 Euro are the equivalent of about $60 US. That’s a big difference, and a big markup over the cost of buying these at Wal-Mart.

So I did a little experiment. I put up a single, fixed-price listing with Best Offer on eBay UK for 9 of the DVD sets for 29.99 pounds with free shipping, and a put up a single auction in the US, starting at $0.99.

End Result: I sold all 9 of the sets in the UK in five days… I wish I had more. The US listing closed at $22.01, with $8.95 for shipping because the buyer ironically was from Canada.

Let’s look at the economics in more detail.

If I divide the costs across the 9 sets in the UK, my numbers are as follows:

Sales Revenue £29.99
Shipping Cost $15.75

eBay Fees $4.96
– Listing Fee $0.54
– Feature Fees $1.89
– Final Value Fees $2.53

PayPal Fees $2.52
– Transaction Fees £1.07
– Cross Border Fees £0.30

Pounds -> Dollars $1.8830
Currency Conversion Fee 2.50%

Total $ Revenue $55.06
Total $ Costs $47.10

Total $ Profit $7.95

Wow. Thats a 14.1% profit margin on the sale price. All for something anyone could have purchased on Walmart.com.

Just for completeness, here is the economics for the US sale:

Sales Revenue $30.96
Shipping Cost $6.00

eBay Fees $2.26
– Listing Fee $0.20
– Feature Fees $0.90
– Final Value Fees $1.16

PayPal Fees $1.51
– Transaction Fees $1.51
– Cross Border Fees $-

Total $ Revenue $30.96
Total $ Costs $33.65

Total $ Profit $(2.69)

Yes, that’s right. Lost money on the US sale.

The fact that I lost money on the US sale isn’t surprising… eBay is a pretty efficient market, and the idea that you could make money buying a product at retail and selling it on eBay is dubious at best, and given that the retailer is the biggest retailer in the US, it’s nearly impossible.

However, I’m amazed at how much money was available to be made selling globally. And eBay makes this so incredibly easy:

  • Listing. I basically just went to the eBay UK website, clicked Sell, and used exactly the same form that is available in the US to list. Incredibly easy.
  • Pricing. The exact same completed auctions functionality is available for the UK site as the US site. Easy.
  • Shipping. I just priced out the shipping via USPS Global Priority mail on the usps.com website. $15.75. Easy.
  • Payment. PayPal is absolutely amazing. Not only could UK buyers pay me in pounds sterling, but I discovered that PayPal will actually let you maintain an account balance in 19 different currencies! They charge a flat 2.5% to convert the payment to dollars, but you can leave your money in pounds sterling and still earn interest on it! (Not a bad feature financially if you believe in diversifying your currency exposure…)
  • Managing your Listings. The UK listing showed up in My eBay and all of my eBay tools the same way every other listing did. Seamless. Painless. Amazing.

I have a few takeaways from this experiment. No, I am not planning to quit my day job to be an import/export eBay seller. But, I do think this example points to some key truths about global e-commerce today:

  • Global markets for retail product are very inefficient. This Garth Brooks DVD was only released in the US. Why? Wal-Mart has a presence in other countries. Maybe it wasn’t worth the logistics for relatively low demand in other countries. Maybe there was limited supply, and they figured the US market was sufficient. Who knows. The point is, there are clearly buyers in other countries who were being underserved here, and it also looks like not enough sellers were stepping into the void to help them.
  • eBay helps make inefficient markets efficient. Meg & Pierre have been talking about this effect for many years, but this is a direct example of it. eBay significantly lowers the barriers to trade globally, and as a result an individual like myself can quickly step in and create value. That 14.1% profit is value, and it doesn’t even count the additional value that was realized by eBay & PayPal through their fees.
  • PayPal is a game changer for international commerce. I knew this academically before doing this experiment, but now I can really feel it viscerally. Being able to handle foreign currency is not something that most businesses, let alone individuals, can handle. But PayPal makes it seamless. Unbelievable. It’s also worth noting that PayPal made a pretty penny here too. My fees on an average UK sale to eBay were about 8.8% of the sale price. The PayPal fees, including currency conversion, were 7%.

As the internet continues to grow, more and more online retailers are going to wake up to the international opportunity. Leveraging PayPal, any webfront store could likely easily collect sales globally (although not with the demand generation of eBay).

To continue the experiment, I’ve ordered 10 more DVD sets… I’m going to try to sell these in Germany, to see if I can overcome the language barrier. To date, I have sold items on eBay to buyers in over 30 different countries, so I’m optimistic that it will work. I’ll post the results to this experiment as well, if people are interested.

P.S. If you are wondering why I take the time to do things like this in my spare time, the answer is pretty simple. I’m a big believer that in technology you have to use your own product, so that you can better understand the experiences of your users. At eBay, it is even more important than at a typical technology company, because the product isn’t just a list of features – it’s the basis for running a business online.

Also, I tend to shop on eBay quite a bit, so making money through selling on eBay helps “fund my habit”, so to speak.

(Please check out Part 2 of this article.)

Your Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) is Worth a Lot More Than 15%

First, credit for this article goes largely to “The Finance Buff“, a great blog I just discovered today. He wrote a post about Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPP) that really struck a chord with me, and I thought I’d share it with my readers.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) Is A Fantastic Deal

Most people think of their ESPP plan as a nice little perk. But after running the numbers, it seems like it’s a much better return that people give it credit for. It’s definitely a much higher return, on average, than the 15% number that people tend to gravitate to.

Let’s walk through the highlights of why by walking through the original post. First, he defines the basics of what an ESPP plan is:

An ESPP typically works this way:

1. You contribute to the ESPP from 1% to 10% of your salary. The contribution is taken out from your paycheck. This is calculated on pre-tax salary but taken after tax (unlike 401k, no tax deduction on ESPP contributions).

2. At the end of a “purchase period,” usually every 6 months, the employer will purchase company stock for you using your contributions during the purchase period. You get a 15% discount on the purchase price. The employer takes the price of the company stock at the beginning of the purchase period and the price at the end of the purchase period, whichever is lower, and THEN gives you a 15% discount from that price.

3. You can sell the purchased stock right away or hold on to them longer for preferential tax treatment.

Your plan may work a little differently. Check with your employer for details.

OK, so that covers the basics. I have seen minor variations on the above, but nothing that eliminates the math that he is about to walk through:

The 15% discount is a big deal. It turns out to be a 90% annualized return or higher.

How so? Suppose the stock was $22 at the beginning of the purchase period and it went down to $20 at the end of the period 6 months later. Here’s what happens:

1. Because the stock went down, your purchase price will be 15% discount to the price at the end of the purchase period, which is $20 * 85% = $17/share.

2. Suppose you contributed $255 per paycheck twice a month. Over a 6-month period you contributed $255 * 12 = $3,060.

3. You will receive $3,060 / $17 = 180 shares. You sell 180 shares at $20/share and receive $20 * 180 = $3,600, earning a profit of $3,600 – $3,060 = $540.

Percentage-wise your return is $540 / $3,060 = 17.65%. But, because your $3,060 was contributed over a 6-month period, the first contribution was tied up for 6 months, and the last contribution was tied up for only a few days. On average your money is only tied up for 3 months. So, earning 17.65% risk free for tying up your money for 3 months is equivalent to earning (1 + 17.65%) ^ 4 – 1 = 91.6% a year.

90%+ a year return is fantastic, isn’t it? That’s when the employer’s stock went down. Had the stock gone up from $20 at the beginning of the purchase period to $22 at the end, your return will be even higher at 180%!

I think the reason people focus on the 15% is a classic example of why people, even very educated people, are not very good intuitively at dealing with money. 15% feels like the value of the ESPP program, because that is the “cash on cash return”, as we used to describe it in venture capital.

Let’s take the example of a hypothetical engineer, Joe, who makes $85,000 a year working for Big Tech, Inc. Joe is a saver, and as a result he puts 10% of his salary into his ESPP plan. Over the course of the period, the stock goes nowhere. Big Tech shares are always worth $50.

At the end of six months, Joe has contributed $4250 to his ESPP plan. They take the lower of the two stock prices, which are both $50, and set the price at 15% lower, $42.50 per share. (You can tell that I used to be a teacher… my numbers are suspiciously turning out to divide out evenly…)

$4250 buys 100 shares at $42.50 each. Since you got a 15% discount, people think that you got a 15% return.

Wrong. A 15% discount actually means you got a 17.65% return. (Read that line again). You have stock worth $5000. But you only paid $4250 for it, for a gain of $750. $750/$4250 = 17.65%.

This isn’t some sort of numbers trick – it’s actually just the difference between looking at what discount you got off full price (15%) versus the return on your money that you received (17.65%). Percentages going down are always more than percentages going back up. For example, if you got a 50% discount on a $1000 TV means you only have to pay $500. But if they raise the price from $500 to $1000, that’s a 100% increase.

So that’s the first gotcha. And 17.65% is nothing to sneeze at. That’s better than the historical average return of every easily accessible asset class I know of (I am excluding Private Equity & Venture Capital, since most people do not have access to them.)

The second gotcha is the fact that Joe didn’t just give them $4250 one day, wait six months, and then got $5000 back. He actually paid it in gradually, paycheck by paycheck. So, he didn’t get a 17.65% annual return.

Now, this is the place where I’ll get technical and explain that Joe didn’t get 17.65% return over 3 months either… that math is faulty. To calculate this correctly, you need to do a cash flow analysis where you evaluate the internal rate of return taking into account each paycheck that Joe made.

In fact, using the numbers provided in my example, I get an annualized return of 98.4% for Joe – and that’s for a stock that didn’t go up!

Salary: $85,000.00
ESPP: 10%
Paychecks/Year: 26

1/14/06 $(326.92)
1/28/06 $(326.92)
2/11/06 $(326.92)
2/25/06 $(326.92)
3/11/06 $(326.92)
3/25/06 $(326.92)
4/8/06 $(326.92)
4/22/06 $(326.92)
5/6/06 $(326.92)
5/20/06 $(326.92)
6/3/06 $(326.92)
6/17/06 $(326.92)
7/1/06 $(326.92)
7/1/06 $5,000.00

IRR 98.4%

So, I think the lesson here is pretty clear. The biggest problem with ESPP programs is that you can only contribute up to 10% of your salary to them, typically. Otherwise, it would make sense to take out almost any type of loan in order to participate. You’d easily be able to pay it back with interest.

However, be forewarned. All of this analysis assumes that you will sell your stock the day you get it. It also is a “pre-tax” return, since you own income taxes on the $750 gain the day your ESPP shares are purchased.

Disclaimer: I am not a financial professional, and every personal situation is different. This blog is personal opinion, not financial advice. You should thoroughly investigate and analyze any financial decision yourself before investing any money in any investment program.

Update (11/10/2007):  There has been some commentary that questions the IRR calculation for this example.  I’ve uploaded an Excel Spreadsheet for this example.  It shows that for this series of cash flows every 2 weeks (13 negative, 1 positive) that the IRR is 98.4%.  For this spreadsheet, I use the XIRR function, which is part of the Excel Analysis Toolpack Add-on, which handles IRR calculations for non-periodic cash flows.

From Excel Help:

XIRR returns the internal rate of return for a schedule of cash flows that is not necessarily periodic. To calculate the internal rate of return for a series of periodic cash flows, use the IRR function.

Nostalgia on the Auction Block: Super Nintendo (SNES)

A little trip down memory lane today.

I’ve finally dusted off, organized, and listed my old Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) on eBay. My parents found these in their garage when they cleaned it out last year for remodeling. Five listings actually:

  1. SNES Console, with Super Mario World
  2. 33 SNES Games
  3. ASCiiPAD Turbo Controller
  4. SNES Game Genie
  5. Extra AC Adapter

I searched the completed auctions for prices, and it seems like the SNES is actually worth more than a Gamecube these days. I guess nostalgia is worth a lot. I have to admit, when I plugged it into my TV today and got to play a little Super Mario World, all those memories came back to me.

I’ve dedicated the auctions to a good cause… I’m going to use the money to get a Nintendo Wii for Jacob. Yes, I know Jacob is two years old. But he’s incredibly facile already, and I think within the next year he’ll be able to enjoy it with me.

Anyway, here is the link to my SNES auctions on eBay. I’ll post next week with how the pricing worked out.

For more fun, I also have my original Nintendo and Atari 2600 with games to auction off. Nostalgia city!

US Mint Unveils the 2007 Presidential Dollar Coins

I have been pleasantly surprised by the popularity of my first post on this topic:

Coming Soon: The Presidential $1 Dollar Coin Program

Well, the day has arrived. It’s November 20th, and the US Mint has officially taken the wraps off the first four Presidential Dollar coins, the ones that will be issued in 2007.

The first four coins represent the the first four Presidents of the United States. The US Mint is really going out of their way to make this an educational program. They have a page set up for every design, with historical facts about each president:

  1. George Washington
  2. John Adams
  3. Thomas Jefferson
  4. James Madison

They have a nice Flash demo up that highlights the new features of coin. Basically, it will be the same size and color as the Sacagawea dollar, but they have expanded the space for the portraits by moving some of the text to the edge of the coin.

The reverse of the coin features the Statue of Liberty, as a sly nod to previous efforts to feature prominant women from US History on the dollar coins.

This coin is a great idea, as it will definitely bring in revenue to the US Mint from collectors, and will spark a whole decade of fun, historical exercise with children.

The one mistake this program is making is not tying it to the removal of the $1 Bill. As Canada has shown recently, eliminating the $1 bill does not have to be traumatic. However, it is necessary if you want to force adoption of the new coin by both consumers and by retailers.

I’m excited about this program, although I’m a little disappointed to hear that they will not be making a precious metal version of the dollar coins. Gold & silver are better base metals for collectibles, since they also have intrinsic value. I would love to see them make a special edition gold version of each coin for collectors.

Unfortunately, they have decided to only make special edition gold coins of the First Ladies for each President… and I’m not sure I’m willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a group of people with dubious historical significance… OK, I might pony up for Jacqueline Kennedy coin… 🙂

Here is the release schedule for all the coins, in case you haven’t seen it. They have only plotted out until early 2016 (Richard Nixon), as I think that’s the point where they start running into live Presidents. We have quite a few living ex-Presidents now (Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton), so they won’t get coins unless something unfortunately happens before 2016.

Yahoo “Peanut Butter” Memo Calls for Big Headcount Cuts

I normally don’t like to do this, but Paul Kedrosky had excellent coverage today of the Yahoo “Peanut Butter” memo, and it’s worth reproducing here. I have quite a few friends at Yahoo now, I’ll have to reach out to them to find out how this might affect their areas. It’s a bit surprising to me to see Yahoo, who has nominally always been organized by business unit, come out and say that they want to move even further in that direction, with a much stronger “General Manager” role for their properties.

Everything below here is from his post.

This critical, internal Yahoo memo was being forwarded all over the place late yesterday, and made the WSJ this morning. The author is allegedly Brad Garlinghouse, a Yahoo senior V.P.

I’m guessing this was written with full knowledge it would be forwarded outside the company, but it still has some strong statements about Yahoo’s fuzzy strategy, its duplicate properties, and its messy structure. Among other things, it calls for 15-20% cut in headcount, which should get traders busy on Monday.

Three and half years ago, I enthusiastically joined Yahoo! The magnitude of the opportunity was only matched by the magnitude of the assets. And an amazing team has been responsible for rebuilding Yahoo!

It has been a profound experience. I am fortunate to have been a part of dramatic change for the Company. And our successes speak for themselves. More users than ever, more engaging than ever and more profitable than ever!

I proudly bleed purple and, yellow everyday! And like so many people here, I love this company

But all is not well. Last Thursday’s NY Times article was a blessing in the disguise of a painful public flogging. While it lacked accurate details, its conclusions rang true, and thus was a much needed wake up call. But also a call to action. A clear statement with which I, and far too many Yahoo’s, agreed. And thankfully a reminder. A reminder that the measure of any person is not in how many times he or she falls down – but rather the spirit and resolve used to get back up. The same is now true of our Company.

It’s time for us to get back up.

I believe we must embrace our problems and challenges and that we must take decisive action. We have the opportunity – in fact the invitation – to send a strong, clear and powerful message to our shareholders and Wall Street, to our advertisers and our partners, to our employees (both current and future), and to our users. They are all begging for a signal that we recognize and understand our problems, and that we are charting a course for fundamental change, Our current course and speed simply will not get us there. Short-term band-aids will not get us there.

It’s time for us to get back up and seize this invitation.

I imagine there’s much discussion amongst the Company’s senior most leadership around the challenges we face. At the risk of being redundant, I wanted to share my take on our current situation and offer a recommended path forward, an attempt to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Recognizing Our Problems

We lack a focused, cohesive vision for our company. We want to do everything and be everything — to everyone. We’ve known this for years, talk about it incessantly, but do nothing to fundamentally address it. We are scared to be left out. We are reactive instead of charting an unwavering course. We are separated into silos that far too frequently don’t talk to each other. And when we do talk, it isn’t to collaborate on a clearly focused strategy, but rather to argue and fight about ownership, strategies and tactics.

Our inclination and proclivity to repeatedly hire leaders from outside the company results in disparate visions of what winning looks like — rather than a leadership team rallying around a single cohesive strategy.

I’ve heard our strategy described as spreading peanut butter across the myriad opportunities that continue to evolve in the online world. The result: a thin layer of investment spread across everything we do and thus we focus on nothing in particular.

I hate peanut butter. We all should.

We lack clarity of ownership and accountability. The most painful manifestation of this is the massive redundancy that exists throughout the organization. We now operate in an organizational structure — admittedly created with the best of intentions — that has become overly bureaucratic. For far too many employees, there is another person with dramatically similar and overlapping responsibilities. This slows us down and burdens the company with unnecessary costs.

Equally problematic, at what point in the organization does someone really OWN the success of their product or service or feature? Product, marketing, engineering, corporate strategy, financial operations… there are so many people in charge (or believe that they are in charge) that it’s not clear if anyone is in charge. This forces decisions to be pushed up – rather than down. It forces decisions by committee or consensus and discourages the innovators from breaking the mold… thinking outside the box.

There’s a reason why a centerfielder and a left fielder have clear areas of ownership. Pursuing die same ball repeatedly results in either collisions or dropped balls. Knowing that someone else is pursuing the ball and hoping to avoid that collision – we have become timid in our pursuit. Again, the ball drops.

We lack decisiveness. Combine a lack of focus with unclear ownership, and the result is that decisions are either not made or are made when it is already too late. Without a clear and focused vision, and without complete clarity of ownership, we lack a macro perspective to guide our decisions and visibility into who should make those decisions. We are repeatedly stymied by challenging and hairy decisions. We are held hostage by our analysis paralysis.

We end up with competing (or redundant) initiatives and synergistic opportunities living in the different silos of our company.
• YME vs. Musicmatch

• Flickr vs. Photos

• YMG video vs. Search video

• Deli.cio.us vs. myweb

• Messenger and plug-ins vs. Sidebar and widgets

• Social media vs. 360 and Groups

• Front page vs. YMG

• Global strategy from BU’vs. Global strategy from Int’l

We have lost our passion to win. Far too many employees are “phoning” it in, lacking the passion and commitment to be a part of the solution. We sit idly by while — at all levels — employees are enabled to “hang around”. Where is the accountability? Moreover, our compensation systems don’t align to our overall success. Weak performers that have been around for years are rewarded. And many of our top performers aren’t adequately recognized for their efforts.

As a result, the employees that we really need to stay (leaders, risk-takers, innovators, passionate) become discouraged and leave. Unfortunately many who opt to stay are not the ones who will lead us through the dramatic change that is needed.

Solving our Problems

We have awesome assets. Nearly every media and communications company is painfully jealous of our position. We have the largest audience, they are highly engaged and our brand is synonymous with the Internet.

If we get back up, embrace dramatic change, we will win.

I don’t pretend there is only one path forward available to us. However, at a minimum, I want to be pad of the solution and thus have outlined a plan here that I believe can work. It is my strong belief that we need to act very quickly or risk going further down a slippery slope, The plan here is not perfect; it is, however, FAR better than no action at all.

There are three pillars to my plan:

1. Focus the vision.

2. Restore accountability and clarity of ownership.

3. Execute a radical reorganization.

1. Focus the vision

a) We need to boldly and definitively declare what we are and what we are not.

b) We need to exit (sell?) non core businesses and eliminate duplicative projects and businesses.

My belief is that the smoothly spread peanut butter needs to turn into a deliberately sculpted strategy — that is narrowly focused.

We can’t simply ask each BU to figure out what they should stop doing. The result will continue to be a non-cohesive strategy. The direction needs to come decisively from the top. We need to place our bets and not second guess. If we believe Media will maximize our ROI — then let’s not be bashful about reducing our investment in other areas. We need to make the tough decisions, articulate them and stick with them — acknowledging that some people (users / partners / employees) will not like it. Change is hard.

2. Restore accountability and clarity of ownership

a) Existing business owners must be held accountable for where we find ourselves today — heads must roll,

b) We must thoughtfully create senior roles that have holistic accountability for a particular line of business (a variant of a GM structure that will work with Yahoo!’s new focus)

c) We must redesign our performance and incentive systems.

I believe there are too many BU leaders who have gotten away with unacceptable results and worse — unacceptable leadership. Too often they (we!) are the worst offenders of the problems outlined here. We must signal to both the employees and to our shareholders that we will hold these leaders (ourselves) accountable and implement change.

By building around a strong and unequivocal GM structure, we will not only empower those leaders, we will eliminate significant overhead throughout our multi-headed matrix. It must be very clear to everyone in the organization who is empowered to make a decision and ownership must be transparent. With that empowerment comes increased accountability — leaders make decisions, the rest of the company supports those decisions, and the leaders ultimately live/die by the results of those decisions.

My view is that far too often our compensation and rewards are just spreading more peanut butter. We need to be much more aggressive about performance based compensation. This will only help accelerate our ability to weed out our lowest performers and better reward our hungry, motivated and productive employees.

3. Execute a radical reorganization

a) The current business unit structure must go away.

b) We must dramatically decentralize and eliminate as much of the matrix as possible.

c) We must reduce our headcount by 15-20%.

I emphatically believe we simply must eliminate the redundancies we have created and the first step in doing this is by restructuring our organization. We can be more efficient with fewer people and we can get more done, more quickly. We need to return more decision making to a new set of business units and their leadership. But we can’t achieve this with baby step changes, We need to fundamentally rethink how we organize to win.

Independent of specific proposals of what this reorganization should look like, two key principles must be represented:

Blow up the matrix. Empower a new generation and model of General Managers to be true general managers. Product, marketing, user experience & design, engineering, business development & operations all report into a small number of focused General Managers. Leave no doubt as to where accountability lies.

Kill the redundancies. Align a set of new BU’s so that they are not competing against each other. Search focuses on search. Social media aligns with community and communications. No competing owners for Video, Photos, etc. And Front Page becomes Switzerland. This will be a delicate exercise — decentralization can create inefficiencies, but I believe we can find the right balance.

I love Yahoo! I’m proud to admit that I bleed purple and yellow. I’m proud to admit that I shaved a Y in the back of my head.

My motivation for this memo is the adamant belief that, as before, we have a tremendous opportunity ahead. I don’t pretend that I have the only available answers, but we need to get the discussion going; change is needed and it is needed soon. We can be a stronger and faster company – a company with a clearer vision and clearer ownership and clearer accountability.

We may have fallen down, but the race is a marathon and not a sprint. I don’t pretend that this will be easy. It will take courage, conviction, insight and tremendous commitment. I very much look forward to the challenge.

So let’s get back up.

Catch the balls.

And stop eating peanut butter.

Sony Playstation 3 (PS3) vs. Nintendo Wii: The Game Professional Pespective

There is a very interesting Question of the Week on Gamasutra today. They asked an audience of video game professionals which console they were going to buy. The question was:

As a video game professional, are you buying a Sony PlayStation 3, Nintendo’s Wii or both on their North American launch later next week? How are you securing your console (eBay, pre-order, queue?), and what underpinned your buying decision?

I thought the answers were fairly interesting.  Overall, game professionals are not really happy with the direction of the industry at this point.  They see a very hardware-focused generation this time, with not a lot of focus on the quality and playability of the games.  Many of the titles for Xbox 360 and Sony Playstation 3 are sequels to existing games, just upgraded with new graphics (ie, every Electronic Arts sports title).

As a result, there is a lot of excitement about the Nintendo Wii, and their stake in the ground that it is game quality and playability that matter, not next-generation graphics.

Personally, I think in the end, there is not question that consumers will continue to push for increased graphics and processing.  This continues to make professional game economics look more and more like movie economics.  Many new game titles now cost $15M-$20M to produce.  This economic one-up-manship will not stop, however, as long as the profits from a successful title continue to rise into the hundreds of millions.  Just like the movie industry, there will always be low-budget, independent games that make news.  However, by and large, it will be the bread-and-butter, expensive titles with expensive franchises that dominate the industry.

It’s the price that the video game industry is paying for being as large and mass-market as they have become.

Still, you have to credit Nintendo for fighting the good fight for game design.  After all, this is the company that literally saved the industry in the mid-1980s from the ruin that was left after the Atari rocket crashed.  Their party line then was they same as their party line now: too many games of low quality will kill the industry.  It’s better to have fewer, higher quality titles that really deliver great games.

Vanguard Launches High Dividend Index Fund

Two news tidbits this week that had me thinking about new investment options.

First, Vanguard just launched a new index fund: the High Dividend Index Fund. They are going to be providing access to the fund in both traditional mutual fund form (Ticker: VHDYX) and in ETF form (Ticker: VYM).

Based on the press release, it looks like the funds will match the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, which is shrouded in some marketing double-speak mystery.   I cannot find the actual companies included in this index anywhere.  It looks like this index was created almost exclusively to be mirrored in the Vanguard fund.

The mutual fund version of the fund will have a 0.40% expense ratio, the ETF will have a 0.25% expense ratio. As a result, you’ll want to use the mutual fund as a vehicle if you are making small, regular investments in the fund (like $100 per month). Otherwise, the commissions will killd you. If you are putting a lot of money to work at one time, and you are using a low-cost broker, the ETF is going to be a better “buy and hold” vehicle given it’s low expense ratio.

This fund might seem to be similar to the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index Fund. They launched the mutual fund (Ticker: VDAIX) and ETF (Ticker: VIG) in April 2006, and those funds feature expense ratios of 0.40% and 0.28%, respectively. The difference is the index it tracks – this older fund tracks the performance of the Dividend Achievers Select Index, which includes stocks with a record of steadily increasing dividends. The fund’s focus on stocks exhibiting dividend growth distinguishes it from this new fund, which emphasizes purely yield.

I personally have a stock account made up of high dividend/cash flow companies as a conservative base to my retirement funds. Seeing this type of product from Vanguard has me thinking that it might make sense to just let them do the work for me here – the expense ratio is incredibly low.

This fund is clearly a response to the very high interest in more “fundamentals-based indexing”, which John C. Bogle, Vanguard Chairman, has been fairly vocal about dismissing. There is definitely a very grey area between an index fund and an actively managed fund. After all, an index itself is created by a group of people, and changed over time. So the truth is, index vs. active is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. The assumption is that an index will change infrequently, leading to lower trading costs and more consistent representation of some asset class or sub-class.

For those of you who are curious, it looks like the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index will be recalculated annually, based on the following formula:

The new custom index consists of stocks that are characterized by higher-than-average dividend yields, and is based on the U.S. component of the FTSE Global Equity Index Series (GEIS). Real estate investment trusts (REITs), whose income generally do not qualify for favorable tax treatment as qualified dividend income (QDI) are removed, as are stocks that have not paid a dividend during the previous 12 months. The remaining stocks are ranked by annual dividend yield and included in the target index until the cumulative market capitalization reaches 50% of the total market cap of this universe of stocks.

There are already a large number of “high dividend” focused mutual funds and ETFs out there (for example, the iShares Dow Select Dividend (Ticker: DVY)), but with Vanguard’s reputation and penchant for low costs, it’s always worth giving their offerings a strong look.  As I’ve posted before, I am a huge fan of Vanguard, and truly believe that they work to lower costs to the bare bone for their investors.

Bix.com is Bought by Yahoo

One of the great things about working for eBay has been all of the great people that you meet and work with. Leonard Speiser was one of the great product managers I had a chance to learn from at eBay, and now his company, Bix.com, has been acquired by Yahoo.

Here is the note on the Bix website from Michael Speiser, who I think does a nice job explaining why they are excited about the deal.

If you haven’t tried Bix.com, it’s a fun site where anyone can set up contests that people vote on. It makes it fairly easy for people to create profiles, and then upload video or pictures related to the contest. It’s like American Idol for everyone. A relatively simple idea, but executed well, and no doubt a very addictive application to add to the Yahoo family. Contests are a great excitement driver, and there is no doubt that Yahoo will try to leverage Bix with large clients who are looking to generate buzz.

One of the most interesting things about working in Silicon Valley is how quickly people can move around and do new and wonderful things. It’s part of the culture – the assumption that everything and everyone will keep moving and changing.

It doesn’t feel like that long ago that I joined eBay, and that I stopped by for some advice and help from Leonard, one of the Senior Product Managers. It doesn’t feel like that long ago that after five years, Leonard decided to go off an pursue a startup.

As a funny anecdote, we had a roast for Leonard at his going away party.  Everyone had these masks made of Leonard’s face, propped up on rulers.  I actually auctioned one off on eBay.com, got it to be the “Most Watched” item on all of eBay, and ended up making $400 from Golden Palace Casino to fund a going away present for Leonard (an engraved iPod).

It’s also a great feeling to see friends go off and be successful like this. There is no better way to start the day than to open the newspaper and see good news like this.

So, congratulations to Leonard and the Bix.com team.

The Death of Economist Milton Friedman

This is very strange and sad.

On November 5th, I wrote my initial post about Milton Friedman, based on a San Jose Mercury News interview I read that weekend. In it, Friedman discusses his thoughts on education, health care, and Iraq.

Milton Friedman has now passed away today, eleven days later. There is really nice coverage of his death on the Business Week website. A sample:

More than anyone else, Milton Friedman was responsible for challenging the worldview of British economist John Maynard Keynes, who believed in the power of government to guide and stimulate economic growth. As an alternative to Keynesianism, he put forth a more laissez-faire philosophy known as monetarism—the doctrine that the best thing the government can do is supply the economy with the money it needs and stand aside.

Friedman blamed inflation on tinkering by governments and central banks. Along with Edmund Phelps of Columbia University, who won the 2006 Nobel prize, Friedman showed that central banks can’t buy permanently lower unemployment with slightly higher inflation. Wrote Friedman: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot occur without a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

One of the things I learned from responses to my original post is that far more people disagreed with Milton Friedman than who had actually read or understood his work. I think I’m going to re-read some of the material I have on my shelf from him this weekend.

Paul Kedrosky’s comments on his blog sum up my feelings as well:

Whatever your views on Friedman’s economics and/or politics, he was a giant of an intellectual figure, a provocative, thoughtful, and maddening figure, about whom the least you can say is that his influence and reputation will outlive all of us.

I want to take this opportunity to just say thank you to Mr. Friedman for his contributions to my understanding of economics.

Intel Launches Quad Core Xeon & I Want an 8-Core Mac Pro

Announcement from Intel yesterday on the availability of the new Quad Core Xeon chips:

Intel Launches Quad Core Xeon

On October 26, Apple Insider ran a piece convinced that Apple would move the Mac Pro to the 4-core Xeon “Clovertown” chips almost immediately.  I have to admit, believe it or not, while I have a dual-2.5 Ghz PowerMac G5, as I play with the new Intel-based Macs, I’m starting to get a lot of processor envy.  My photo library is now approximately 50GB and 30,000 shots.  With an average image size of 3-8MB, I can really feel the increased speed of the current Mac Pro when I play with them at the Apple Store.

I found this article on AnandTech where they actually replaced the current dual-core Xeon’s in a Mac Pro with the new chip, giving them 8 cores in their Mac Pro.

I have to admit – when Apple announced the Intel transition, I thought it had a lot more to do with marketing than strategy.  What better way to neutralize negative comparisons with PC hardware than to coopt the platform and let software be the differentiator.  However, I definitely underestimated how Apple would leverage the Intel pipeline to produce some really dazzling machines, at dazzling price points.  I know several people who have finally decided to get a Mac, and it was the price point of the Mac Pro vs. Dell that pushed them over the edge… I guess people forgot how much the PC manufacturers still like to squeeze margins out of the high end.

So, in case you are wondering, this makes another great holiday gift idea for me… I’d love an 8-core Mac Pro, if you could.  Thanks.

Zune vs. iPod: Microsoft’s Third Strike

You know, I was all ready to write a really long article comparing the new Microsoft Zune to the Apple iPod. But then, some guy I don’t even know (Jeremy Horowitz) went and wrote up the exact article I was thinking about… and even did it better. So read his.

Microsoft’s Third Strike: Zune Hyped, Lessons Learned

I found another blog, hosted in Japan, that just rips Zune pretty hard.

Personally, I completely understand why Microsoft built the Zune, and rushed it to market. Microsoft is not used to being on the other end of network effects, and while they’ve been focusing on Google as their new enemy #1, Apple has somehow locked up the digital media marketplace around music. Worse, they seem to be in a good position to leverage that monopoly into other areas of the digital home.

In digital media, it’s like the Bizarro planet, where the planet is square and you say goodbye when you enter, hello when you leave. Apple has the entrenched monopoly, tied together with a powerful alliance of hardware, software & digital rights management. Microsoft is the underdog here, because they can’t really leverage their strength in the enterprise, and their consumer marketshare doesn’t help them much either since the iPod & iTunes are cross-platform.

It really is strange through the looking glass, because in this world Apple has the broad product line and thousands of third parties, including auto manufacturers! Microsoft has just a few models, and insignificant ecosystem support.

I’m not sure I understand why Microsoft abandoned PlaysForSure with Zune. One of the things I learned from Michael Porter about corporate strategy is that you need to build your moat around your unique value proposition – not try to and just mimic your competitors. The Zune smacks of a bit of desperation, and I’m not sure hundreds of millions in marketing dollars will change that.

Still, Microsoft has deep pockets, and they are going to be in the game for the long term. My prediction is that they’ll lean towards tighter integration with the Xbox, and use that as the lever into the digital home. I do wonder, however, whether they could have just embraced the iPod, and worked to make the Windows Media, Xbox, iPod ecosystem flawless, thus containing Apple to what will eventually be a small piece of the overall digital home. It would have been a lot cheaper, and would have spared them another round of embarrassment.

Embrace & Extend. Whatever happened to that oldie but goodie?

Tivo Series 3: Holiday Gadget Guide Review

There is a really good review of the Tivo Series 3 on the new Holiday Gadget Guide being hosted by Federated Media.  It’s written by the guy who writes for PVRBlog.

Tivo’s going HD: The Series 3

Very balanced review, but I think it highlights the dilemna that everyone has.  There seems to be no question that this is the best HD DVR out there, bar none.  But the price!  Ouch.

As a result, I’m going to add this to the same list that the Nintendo Wii is on.

It’s the “feel free to buy me one for the holidays” list.

Much appreciated!  Thank you in advance.

Sequencing the Neanderthal Genome: 1 Million Down, 2 Years to Go

A very exciting article was published in Nature magazine today:

Analysis of One Million Base Pairs of Neanderthal DNA

This is really more of a report of a proof of concept, the ability and technique to sequence ancient DNA from a 45,000 year old specimen.

There is also some good coverage on the Science Blog:

The veil of mystery surrounding our extinct hominid cousins, the Neanderthals, has been at least partially lifted to reveal surprising results. Scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) have sequenced genomic DNA from fossilized Neanderthal bones. Their results show that the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5-percent identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and that the two species cohabitated the same geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. Based on these early results, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis last shared a common ancestor approximately 700,000 years ago.

Most of the coverage goes out of its way to say that there was no inter-breeding between  Neanderthals and modern man.  However, for some reason, the Gene Expression blog is reporting the opposite.

The most exciting news is that they are kicking off a 2-year program to fully sequence the Neanderthal genome.  The New York Times has the best article on the topic I can find online.

We are going to learn an incredible amount about hominid evolution and ourselves through this process.  I’m also quite excited about the eventual ethical debates about whether or not we should at some point try to clone a real Neanderthal.  In particular, I’d be very interested to hear the arguments from the anti-evolution crowd about whether or not they would consider this cloning a human being.

Purely theoretical at this point, since we don’t have the technology… yet.

Psychohistory is a Top Blog… For Today

Wow. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, here are the daily visits to my blog over the last 30 days:

As some of you know, I decided a few months ago to give blogging a try. Over the past two months, I’ve written about ninety posts, on a wide variety of topics.

Until today, my most popular post was:
VMware Fusion Goes Beta & Virtualization for Mac OS X Goes Pro

This was a post that got a lot of hits for a couple of days, most likely because the Mac has a pretty intense fanbase, and the news was pretty timely.

Today was the first day for a new post I made last night on one of my favorite TV shows, Battlestar Galactica:
My Theory on How Battlestar Galactica Will End

Here are the latest stats on the top posts for my blog over the last 30 days now:

All those visits in about 24 hours. It’s exciting, largely because unlike other posts, this one was something purely driven by personal interest, and less about “what people want to read”. It also is a more frivolous topic.

What really happened is this: someone found the post, and started a thread on the SCI FI channel website chat boards for Battlestar Galactica. So, it’s kind of like I was SlashDot’ed, but at one millionth the scale. 🙂

But success breeds success, so I’m happy to announce that today, for the first time, my blog is actually ranking well across all WordPress.com blogs!

My post is currently the 8th most popular post on WordPress.com today!

My blog is rated 22nd for the fastest growing blogs on WordPress.com:

And, as I mentioned, it is now in the Top 100 ranked blogs on WordPress.com (#41):

It’s possible that the fifteen minutes of fame for this blog have started counting right now. In the end, the goal of this blog was not to become any sort of popular site or property. At eBay, we typically measure success in the millions, if not billions, of page views.  It’s funny to think that 600 page views is significant.

But it is kind of a kick to see the numbers jump like this, even if in absolute terms they are small. I continue to learn a lot about blogging through this process – I’m just glad that people are interested and enjoying my writing for the time being.

It’s also definitely fun to watch people debate my little theory on a potential ending for Battlestar Galactica.

Tomorrow I’ll be back to posts about personal finance and growing tomatoes.