<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Felix Salmon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 20:32:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How technology redefines norms by JeffJarvis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/18/how-technology-redefines-norms/comment-page-1/#comment-47041</link>
		<dc:creator>JeffJarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 20:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21804#comment-47041</guid>
		<description>I point you, Felix, and Noah Brier to Hanah Arendt in The Human Condition: &quot;A man who lived only a private life, who like a slave was not permitted to enter the public realm, or like the barbarian had not chosen to establish such a realm, was not fully human.&quot; 
Also to Patricia Meyer Spacks in Privacy: Conceling the Eighteenth Century Self: &quot;The word privacy derives from a Latin word meaning deprived; deprived of public office; in other words, cut off from the full and appropriate functioning of a man.&quot; 
And to Lawrence Friedman in Guarding Life&#039;s Secrets: &quot;Privacy is a modern invention. Medieval people had no concept of privacy. They also had no actual privacy. Nobody was ever alone. No ordinary person had private space. Houses were tiny and crowded. Everyone was embedded in a face-to-face community. Privacy, as idea and reality, is the creation of modern bourgeois society.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I point you, Felix, and Noah Brier to Hanah Arendt in The Human Condition: &#8220;A man who lived only a private life, who like a slave was not permitted to enter the public realm, or like the barbarian had not chosen to establish such a realm, was not fully human.&#8221;<br />
Also to Patricia Meyer Spacks in Privacy: Conceling the Eighteenth Century Self: &#8220;The word privacy derives from a Latin word meaning deprived; deprived of public office; in other words, cut off from the full and appropriate functioning of a man.&#8221;<br />
And to Lawrence Friedman in Guarding Life&#8217;s Secrets: &#8220;Privacy is a modern invention. Medieval people had no concept of privacy. They also had no actual privacy. Nobody was ever alone. No ordinary person had private space. Houses were tiny and crowded. Everyone was embedded in a face-to-face community. Privacy, as idea and reality, is the creation of modern bourgeois society.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How technology redefines norms by JeffJarvis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/18/how-technology-redefines-norms/comment-page-1/#comment-47039</link>
		<dc:creator>JeffJarvis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:44:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21804#comment-47039</guid>
		<description>It would generally be a mistake to regulate technology. We already regulate behavior. And we cannot anticipate all the uses, good and bad, of a technology. 
The same with norms. There&#039;s nothing necessarily different, as -- I feel silly with this attribution -- GRRR points about above, between taking a picture with a camera or Glass except Glass is new and thus various media worrywarts sound alarms about it. 
I was appalled with Nick Bilton&#039;s blog post in The Times worrying that people would use Glass to take pictures of his junk in the men&#039;s room. They had that capability before. They had not good reason to before. They certainly have no good reason to now. If anyone tried with any technology, I can predict what will happen (and the media trend stories that will then be extrapolated from that event). 
I don&#039;t dismiss the concerns of the good ladies and gentlemen of Newport, Felix. I point out that in the interim, we did indeed figure it out. We do. Society does. To imagine that we cannot figure it out or that we&#039;ll do a bad job of it is instead rather dismissive of all of us today, wouldn&#039;t you say?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would generally be a mistake to regulate technology. We already regulate behavior. And we cannot anticipate all the uses, good and bad, of a technology.<br />
The same with norms. There&#8217;s nothing necessarily different, as &#8212; I feel silly with this attribution &#8212; GRRR points about above, between taking a picture with a camera or Glass except Glass is new and thus various media worrywarts sound alarms about it.<br />
I was appalled with Nick Bilton&#8217;s blog post in The Times worrying that people would use Glass to take pictures of his junk in the men&#8217;s room. They had that capability before. They had not good reason to before. They certainly have no good reason to now. If anyone tried with any technology, I can predict what will happen (and the media trend stories that will then be extrapolated from that event).<br />
I don&#8217;t dismiss the concerns of the good ladies and gentlemen of Newport, Felix. I point out that in the interim, we did indeed figure it out. We do. Society does. To imagine that we cannot figure it out or that we&#8217;ll do a bad job of it is instead rather dismissive of all of us today, wouldn&#8217;t you say?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How technology redefines norms by GRRR</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/18/how-technology-redefines-norms/comment-page-1/#comment-47038</link>
		<dc:creator>GRRR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21804#comment-47038</guid>
		<description>I really don&#039;t think the norms are changing at all.  What&#039;s actually changing here, is HOW we take pictures and videos.  Glass and its ilk are no less invasive than the smartphone camera, a GoPro mounted on your helmet or Street View.

What might freak out people, is face-recognition (that&#039;s not to say that it&#039;s currently built into Glass).  But you should recognize that face-recognition will be coming to every one of those security cameras in the public and private realms.  Right now, Androids have the capability to unlock phones via face-recognition, though I&#039;m sure most people are not aware of it.

If people are upset about the pervasiveness of this capability, then Congress should step up and make it clear that such software shall be limited to those in your contacts (Google, iOS, FB, Twitter, etc), or for the purpose of personal security (home security, device security, etc).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really don&#8217;t think the norms are changing at all.  What&#8217;s actually changing here, is HOW we take pictures and videos.  Glass and its ilk are no less invasive than the smartphone camera, a GoPro mounted on your helmet or Street View.</p>
<p>What might freak out people, is face-recognition (that&#8217;s not to say that it&#8217;s currently built into Glass).  But you should recognize that face-recognition will be coming to every one of those security cameras in the public and private realms.  Right now, Androids have the capability to unlock phones via face-recognition, though I&#8217;m sure most people are not aware of it.</p>
<p>If people are upset about the pervasiveness of this capability, then Congress should step up and make it clear that such software shall be limited to those in your contacts (Google, iOS, FB, Twitter, etc), or for the purpose of personal security (home security, device security, etc).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jamie Dimon needs a boss by Sechel</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/17/jamie-dimon-needs-a-boss/comment-page-1/#comment-47037</link>
		<dc:creator>Sechel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 19:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21782#comment-47037</guid>
		<description>Frankly separating the role of CEO &amp; Chairman of the Board is just good governance. With the exception of smaller publicly traded firms, I can&#039;t understand why shareholders would not insist upon it.  It seems where companies get into trouble is where the board is not able to exercise good over-sight. A CEO who holds both titles would seem to go against an effective board.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frankly separating the role of CEO &#038; Chairman of the Board is just good governance. With the exception of smaller publicly traded firms, I can&#8217;t understand why shareholders would not insist upon it.  It seems where companies get into trouble is where the board is not able to exercise good over-sight. A CEO who holds both titles would seem to go against an effective board.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jamie Dimon needs a boss by QuietThinker</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/17/jamie-dimon-needs-a-boss/comment-page-1/#comment-47036</link>
		<dc:creator>QuietThinker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 18:11:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21782#comment-47036</guid>
		<description>@y2kurtus thinks that the too big to fail banks serve a purpose.  If the purpose is to take insured deposits which could be loaned to small businesses to London, Hong Kong, etc and gamble those funds in currency speculations and derivatives, then Jamie Dimon is your man.

The cult of the CEO is a disaster.  Every company big enough to be listed on the stock exchange needs a board chairman to oversee the company president and to represent the owner-shareholders.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@y2kurtus thinks that the too big to fail banks serve a purpose.  If the purpose is to take insured deposits which could be loaned to small businesses to London, Hong Kong, etc and gamble those funds in currency speculations and derivatives, then Jamie Dimon is your man.</p>
<p>The cult of the CEO is a disaster.  Every company big enough to be listed on the stock exchange needs a board chairman to oversee the company president and to represent the owner-shareholders.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Are Cooper Union&#8217;s finances fixable? by unreceivedogma</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/11/are-cooper-unions-finances-fixable/comment-page-1/#comment-47035</link>
		<dc:creator>unreceivedogma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 17:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21695#comment-47035</guid>
		<description>Enlightening. Great and necessary clarification. To bad it&#039;s needed. Thank you, thank you.

ML, CU A&#039;76</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enlightening. Great and necessary clarification. To bad it&#8217;s needed. Thank you, thank you.</p>
<p>ML, CU A&#8217;76</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jamie Dimon needs a boss by y2kurtus</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/17/jamie-dimon-needs-a-boss/comment-page-1/#comment-47033</link>
		<dc:creator>y2kurtus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 04:10:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21782#comment-47033</guid>
		<description>Whine as many will about the too big to fail banks they do serve a purpose. National businesses can use one firm coast to coast. Customers who travel frequently between large cities can transact business seamlessly. Truly massive web and systems platform spending can be spread across businesses in the thousands and customers in the millions. 

Capital is the only issue to decide. If a bank is to big to unwind in an orderly fashion than by all means require more capital. The Canadian model (basically 5 large national banks vs +5,000 in the US) works just fine.

If people don&#039;t want to work with a large bank run by a 20,000,000 CEO they can always bank at one of the +1,000 customer owned mutual banks like mine or the +6,000 credit unions like Felix&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whine as many will about the too big to fail banks they do serve a purpose. National businesses can use one firm coast to coast. Customers who travel frequently between large cities can transact business seamlessly. Truly massive web and systems platform spending can be spread across businesses in the thousands and customers in the millions. </p>
<p>Capital is the only issue to decide. If a bank is to big to unwind in an orderly fashion than by all means require more capital. The Canadian model (basically 5 large national banks vs +5,000 in the US) works just fine.</p>
<p>If people don&#8217;t want to work with a large bank run by a 20,000,000 CEO they can always bank at one of the +1,000 customer owned mutual banks like mine or the +6,000 credit unions like Felix&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Are Cooper Union&#8217;s finances fixable? by Cooperalum</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/11/are-cooper-unions-finances-fixable/comment-page-1/#comment-47032</link>
		<dc:creator>Cooperalum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 13:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21695#comment-47032</guid>
		<description>I watched the &quot;debate&quot; between Salmon and Mark Epstein in which Epstein gave hazy answers to direct questions and was unbearably smug and condescending.  With leaders like this, why would anyone want to support the school?  

As an alum, I can attest that Cooper&#039;s fundraising efforts have been weak at best.  But these problems harken back to over 20 years ago when the school built the dorm against the will and good sense of much of the alumni, faculty and student body.  The president and board were completely dismissive of all differing points of view and barreled ahead with their plans.  Now it is clear that this was also a poor financial decision that has contributed to Cooper&#039;s woes.

Salmon&#039;s assessment of Cooper&#039;s problems but also of their strengths is remarkably insightful.  Thanks for a critical viewpoint.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I watched the &#8220;debate&#8221; between Salmon and Mark Epstein in which Epstein gave hazy answers to direct questions and was unbearably smug and condescending.  With leaders like this, why would anyone want to support the school?  </p>
<p>As an alum, I can attest that Cooper&#8217;s fundraising efforts have been weak at best.  But these problems harken back to over 20 years ago when the school built the dorm against the will and good sense of much of the alumni, faculty and student body.  The president and board were completely dismissive of all differing points of view and barreled ahead with their plans.  Now it is clear that this was also a poor financial decision that has contributed to Cooper&#8217;s woes.</p>
<p>Salmon&#8217;s assessment of Cooper&#8217;s problems but also of their strengths is remarkably insightful.  Thanks for a critical viewpoint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Have we solved our fiscal problems? by y2kurtus</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/15/have-we-solved-our-fiscal-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-47031</link>
		<dc:creator>y2kurtus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 02:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21757#comment-47031</guid>
		<description>@ Felix, 

Come on man, you&#039;re way to good a policy wonk to use the CBO forecasts unmodified. Please correct me if I&#039;m mistaken but the baseline budget forecast assumes that:

the annual medicare fix doesn&#039;t happen next year (as it does every year) I think that&#039;s almost a 300B 10 year delta by itself at this point.  

I think the CBO projections also assume that we&#039;re going to drop back to only 36 weeks of unemployment insurance next year... dubious to the tune of 10 - 20 billion annually. 

Also I think the earned income tax credit sunsets in 5 years which pad the back half of the forecast. 

Plus we are assuming that accelerated depreciation on capital investment (which we have patched every year since 2008) ends next year.. I think that&#039;s like 25 billion annually. 

The unavoidable issue is that the standard of living for the working class in 1st world nations must continue to fall if we are wedded to the idea of a 15 year average government funded retirement. As the ratio of workers to non-workers continues to worsen taxes on workers must rise and benefits to non-workers must fall. The math is the math.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Felix, </p>
<p>Come on man, you&#8217;re way to good a policy wonk to use the CBO forecasts unmodified. Please correct me if I&#8217;m mistaken but the baseline budget forecast assumes that:</p>
<p>the annual medicare fix doesn&#8217;t happen next year (as it does every year) I think that&#8217;s almost a 300B 10 year delta by itself at this point.  </p>
<p>I think the CBO projections also assume that we&#8217;re going to drop back to only 36 weeks of unemployment insurance next year&#8230; dubious to the tune of 10 &#8211; 20 billion annually. </p>
<p>Also I think the earned income tax credit sunsets in 5 years which pad the back half of the forecast. </p>
<p>Plus we are assuming that accelerated depreciation on capital investment (which we have patched every year since 2008) ends next year.. I think that&#8217;s like 25 billion annually. </p>
<p>The unavoidable issue is that the standard of living for the working class in 1st world nations must continue to fall if we are wedded to the idea of a 15 year average government funded retirement. As the ratio of workers to non-workers continues to worsen taxes on workers must rise and benefits to non-workers must fall. The math is the math.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The tragedy of Cooper Union by Reader3421</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/04/29/the-tragedy-of-cooper-union/comment-page-1/#comment-47029</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader3421</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 12:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21516#comment-47029</guid>
		<description>Just looked this up after hearing the author accused of inaccuracies on Democracy Now, and yet that &quot;Trustee&quot; did not give any examples, good important story!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just looked this up after hearing the author accused of inaccuracies on Democracy Now, and yet that &#8220;Trustee&#8221; did not give any examples, good important story!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Have we solved our fiscal problems? by TFF</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/15/have-we-solved-our-fiscal-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-47028</link>
		<dc:creator>TFF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 12:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21757#comment-47028</guid>
		<description>The greater problem, Felix, is that everything to the right of that dashed line is pure fiction. Cut your graph off at reality, and you see that the debt has doubled relative to GDP over a handful of years.

I don&#039;t know what reality will bring. Perhaps the CBO is getting it right this time? But what happens if we instead hit another recession in the next ten years, again slashing revenues while driving up spending? Before you know it, we&#039;ll be at 120% of GDP, with the spendthrifts arguing that the only way out is to push government spending even higher.

Fact is, we&#039;ve already seen moderate austerity measures AND IT HASN&#039;T DAMPENED THE RECOVERY AT ALL! There are more positive signs over the recent months than there were in the previous two years combined. I&#039;ll trust empirical evidence ahead of theory in this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The greater problem, Felix, is that everything to the right of that dashed line is pure fiction. Cut your graph off at reality, and you see that the debt has doubled relative to GDP over a handful of years.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know what reality will bring. Perhaps the CBO is getting it right this time? But what happens if we instead hit another recession in the next ten years, again slashing revenues while driving up spending? Before you know it, we&#8217;ll be at 120% of GDP, with the spendthrifts arguing that the only way out is to push government spending even higher.</p>
<p>Fact is, we&#8217;ve already seen moderate austerity measures AND IT HASN&#8217;T DAMPENED THE RECOVERY AT ALL! There are more positive signs over the recent months than there were in the previous two years combined. I&#8217;ll trust empirical evidence ahead of theory in this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Are Cooper Union&#8217;s finances fixable? by EllieK</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/11/are-cooper-unions-finances-fixable/comment-page-1/#comment-47025</link>
		<dc:creator>EllieK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 08:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21695#comment-47025</guid>
		<description>Felix,
Thank you for your careful, compassionate post about Cooper Union. I have been inspired by the legacy of Peter Cooper for so many years, of free tuition for students of the school, and it makes my heart ache to learn further details of the endowment&#039;s mismanagement.

There is no reason, none, for 60% of the school&#039;s (non-real estate?) assets to be invested with hedge funds. The loan, the new building, all of it, seems to have happened as though there were no board of directors at all.

I cannot see any benefit to selling the leasehold on the Chrysler Building. The current board and managers of Cooper Union haven&#039;t demonstrated much ability to manage the school&#039;s finances to-date. They don&#039;t seem regretful, repentant now, so it is unlikely that they would change their irresponsible ways going forward. Nor is the &quot;Mayor Bloomberg foundation as savior scenario&quot; good, even if he were inclined to pursue such. I&#039;m not implying anything improper about his integrity! Only expressing concern that there is too much responsibility for New York City, its governance and economic dependencies concentrated in the financial sector already, with Bloomberg L.P. being a large part of that. If Mayor Bloomberg had had fiduciary responsibility for Cooper Union, I doubt that the school would be in the situation it is in now! But he isn&#039;t the answer. Appeals to alumni for funds, or selling off, at a minimum, renting out that wasteful new building would be a better place to start.

Also, consider the possibility that there may be restrictions associated with the land under the Chrysler Building bequeathed to Cooper Union by Peter Cooper. The founding documents of the school would need to be reviewed carefully. Even if permissible, I don&#039;t think that selling off that asset, that wonderful income stream for Cooper Union, would be a good thing to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Felix,<br />
Thank you for your careful, compassionate post about Cooper Union. I have been inspired by the legacy of Peter Cooper for so many years, of free tuition for students of the school, and it makes my heart ache to learn further details of the endowment&#8217;s mismanagement.</p>
<p>There is no reason, none, for 60% of the school&#8217;s (non-real estate?) assets to be invested with hedge funds. The loan, the new building, all of it, seems to have happened as though there were no board of directors at all.</p>
<p>I cannot see any benefit to selling the leasehold on the Chrysler Building. The current board and managers of Cooper Union haven&#8217;t demonstrated much ability to manage the school&#8217;s finances to-date. They don&#8217;t seem regretful, repentant now, so it is unlikely that they would change their irresponsible ways going forward. Nor is the &#8220;Mayor Bloomberg foundation as savior scenario&#8221; good, even if he were inclined to pursue such. I&#8217;m not implying anything improper about his integrity! Only expressing concern that there is too much responsibility for New York City, its governance and economic dependencies concentrated in the financial sector already, with Bloomberg L.P. being a large part of that. If Mayor Bloomberg had had fiduciary responsibility for Cooper Union, I doubt that the school would be in the situation it is in now! But he isn&#8217;t the answer. Appeals to alumni for funds, or selling off, at a minimum, renting out that wasteful new building would be a better place to start.</p>
<p>Also, consider the possibility that there may be restrictions associated with the land under the Chrysler Building bequeathed to Cooper Union by Peter Cooper. The founding documents of the school would need to be reviewed carefully. Even if permissible, I don&#8217;t think that selling off that asset, that wonderful income stream for Cooper Union, would be a good thing to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The silliness of valuing hedge funds by PLSD</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/10/the-silliness-of-valuing-hedge-funds/comment-page-1/#comment-47024</link>
		<dc:creator>PLSD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 00:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21679#comment-47024</guid>
		<description>@dsquared, the point is not whether Citi got a good deal when it bought Old Lane- most Citi shareholders would argue that it didn&#039;t. The point is that major banks and asset managers are actively involved in a growing hedge fund M&amp;A environment, and those professional investors do not make M&amp;A decisions with extensively modeling out the target firm&#039;s valuation. Period. Salmon may think this exercise silly- it is in fact difficult to value the OTM call option component of future performance fees- but its what firms are doing every day. Look at DYAL Capital, a spin out of Neuberger Berman, which focuses on buying stakes in hedge fund sponsors. Look at seed capital providers like RMF/MAN- they are making valuation calculations when they take equity stakes in emerging managers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@dsquared, the point is not whether Citi got a good deal when it bought Old Lane- most Citi shareholders would argue that it didn&#8217;t. The point is that major banks and asset managers are actively involved in a growing hedge fund M&#038;A environment, and those professional investors do not make M&#038;A decisions with extensively modeling out the target firm&#8217;s valuation. Period. Salmon may think this exercise silly- it is in fact difficult to value the OTM call option component of future performance fees- but its what firms are doing every day. Look at DYAL Capital, a spin out of Neuberger Berman, which focuses on buying stakes in hedge fund sponsors. Look at seed capital providers like RMF/MAN- they are making valuation calculations when they take equity stakes in emerging managers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bloomberg is watching you by alexh</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/14/bloomberg-is-watching-you/comment-page-1/#comment-47023</link>
		<dc:creator>alexh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 00:19:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21699#comment-47023</guid>
		<description>Doesn&#039;t Reuters offer somewhat analogous financial data services? How does it work there? It would seem an obvious point of comparison.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t Reuters offer somewhat analogous financial data services? How does it work there? It would seem an obvious point of comparison.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Have we solved our fiscal problems? by KenG_CA</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/15/have-we-solved-our-fiscal-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-47022</link>
		<dc:creator>KenG_CA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 19:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=21757#comment-47022</guid>
		<description>The US debt will become a problem when other large economies, like the EU, the UK, and Japan, solve their debt problems.  Which isn&#039;t going to happen anytime soon.

We could end federal deficits if those with cash decided to use more of it here.  People don&#039;t like the government having to pay unemployment benefits, but the amount the government spends on unemployment is inversely proportional to how many people are employed.  If business &quot;leaders&quot; are so upset about the government spending on social programs, they could cause the spending to be reduced by hiring more people and paying for things like health care and child care.  Then the government wouldn&#039;t have to do it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US debt will become a problem when other large economies, like the EU, the UK, and Japan, solve their debt problems.  Which isn&#8217;t going to happen anytime soon.</p>
<p>We could end federal deficits if those with cash decided to use more of it here.  People don&#8217;t like the government having to pay unemployment benefits, but the amount the government spends on unemployment is inversely proportional to how many people are employed.  If business &#8220;leaders&#8221; are so upset about the government spending on social programs, they could cause the spending to be reduced by hiring more people and paying for things like health care and child care.  Then the government wouldn&#8217;t have to do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
