Is it really so complicated? Every day for months now, I have heard newspapers executives discussing the “death” of the paper, and how something must be done quickly in order to save whatever is left. There are many different solutions offered but one of them is that all newspapers get together to no longer their content for free on the internet…! Seriously!?!? Is that the best they can come up with? The problem with that vision is that there will always be other organisations that will be willing to offer their news out for free. Why? Simply because through the internet, a media company can be run with almost no resources. A group could rent out an apartment, publish and write all of their content from there and easily make a profit simply through advertisements. The problem here is not the revenue structure but rather the cost structure.

The one example that seems to always come up is Newscorp’s Wall Street Journal, the much respected business/investment outlet. The WSJ has been very successful in its internet venture with enough paying members to account for a very significant amount of revenues. Many other newspapers come up with the comparison as justification for trying to switch to a membership model.

However, it seems obvious to me that there are 2 very major differences between most newspapers and the WSJ.

#1-The WSJ is by far one of the leaders in its field. It has proved for decades that in terms of analysis, reporting and research, it is one of the three or four best media outlets. That makes its content a lot easier to charge for.
#2-The WSJ is generally paid for by employers. This is a major difference of course. Employees and consumers might be willing to pay for it, but you can bet a lot of money on the fact that most would not be members if their employer did not foot up the bill.

I think any newspaper that fills in one of these two conditions can be successful with an online model (although exactly how to set it up is very much up for debate, depending on the newspaper and strategy).  But let’s be honest, most newspapers that we hear complaining do not fill either condition. And when that is the case, then the model is not for them, it’s that simple.

Let’s not live in a dream, we cannot turn back time and go back to having no free news on the internet, it’s not going to happen. So I would really appreciate if the debate about newspapers’ future would be a little more constructuve…

I personally think these are very interesting times in the world of personal finance and investment as markets are in much uncertainty. A lot of investment companies had predicted a rebound later this year, and it is very difficult to determine if the rebound is now out of steam and thus if this is the time to put money back into the markets or to take back the recent gains.

TFB discusses the choice of taking an annuity of a lump sum when changing jobs
DGI discusses the changes in Warren Buffet’s Berkshire portfolio
Very interesting article about how one could/should view failing
Set your own interest rate
Zach discusses the impact of OTC regulations on the CME stock
lnteresting point of view from MDJ about what to do with 5K
Creating an LLC, why would you do it?
Should you use a fee only financial planner??
Paying cash could soon pay off!

In a few months, the movie “Ugly Truth” will hit movie theatres in the US. And while I’m sure it will be good as it stars Katherine Heigl, this post has nothing to do with the movie. In fact, the title is the only thing in common between the two.

It is always interesting to me how many truths are not said even though few would argue with them. One is that economic tough times such as the ones we are currently living through have good sides. Think about major corporations, and how they strive to constantly improve their operations and their efficiency.

Often, such companies are able to improve their capabilities and change what they’re good at. The problem of course is that even though a company might need fewer employees to do the same job. For many reasons, companies are often not able to lay off their least effective employees or close out divisions that are not performing up to expectations. Some of the reasons include employee morale as it is often seen as a very negative sign to work in a company that is laying off employees. Not saying it should be the case but it just is.

But these days, who would ever doubt a company that is laying off employees? Every day (5% of global workforce at Nike today), companies are announcing more layoffs. Not to say that they are not necessary or that these are not tough times but it just seems like the perfect timing for any company to either lay off less effective employees or to set in place a new company structure. I’m not complaining, far from it. I am actually one of those who would prefer if companies would have more flexibility performing such functions even though it might mean one day I could be the victim. I personally think it is employees job to justify their position, not the opposite. Companies pay us every week for the work done and once that is performed, we are even.

Let’s face it, both on a corporate or a society level, we should hope to be as effective and productive as possible, not bound to keeping jobs just to keep jobs. I personally think that I only have to always remain good enough to justify my job…As long as that is true, you will have a job, if not at your current company, in another one…

We’ve seen it a million times, a corporation or bank that notices a missing amount of money, and starts an investigation. Of course there are many different reasons for missing money and not all of them are fraudulent. And with all the billions of dollars going around right now in this current economic crisis, most Americans expect and have confidence that the money is being well spent and used responsibly.

The following video is shocking to say the least. I’m the first one to say that asking questions about every dollar being spent is not fair, useless in terms of effort vs result and can incur more trouble than benefit. But between a few dollars missing from an account, and hundreds of millions of dollars that are not accounted for, there is a major difference. The worse part is probably not even the answers to the specific questions but rather the general lack of knowledge or lack of system to account for all of these expenses, it is shocking.

This is one of the problems with government entities and the public sector in general in my opinion. No doubt, there are many problems in private companies as well (think Enron for example). But the difference in my opinion is that there just does not seem to be much that can be done when the government is responsible. Imagine a company being unable to explain where $1 billions went. You can be sure that there would be some executive movements and probably some lawsuits as well. But testimonies such as the one you will see below often got without much notice or without even making headline news..

Am I the only one not to get it?? What is wrong with our society to simply accept such answers. I would not mind the lady not knowing where the money is if she could simply tell us that all money is accounted for and that while she is unable to give out details on the spot, she’ll be able to get back with answers. But clearly, that does not seem to be the case.

Honestly, shouldn’t Barack Obama have to answer to this? He should be able to give out directions to improve the monitoring and transparency of the Fed, something he promised across the board.