Why smart people make dumb decisions

first_img 10SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Did you ever find your self in a mess and wonder how you got there? There’s no guarantee your decisions are always going to be good ones. Too much is unpredictable.However, many of us have had the experience of looking back on a situation and thinking “I should have known better. The warning signs were all there.”Here are 8 reasons smart people make dumb decisions. As you think about a time you ignored the signals, was it for any of these reasons?Understanding the warning signs and why you ignored them can help you avoid repeating these mistakes.1. IsolationA major cause of poor decisions comes from making them a vacuum without having important information. Sometimes people don’t solicit input because they are over-confident and don’t believe others have anything worthwhile to add. Other times it’s because they believe they are supposed to be strong and have all the answers and think soliciting input makes them look weak. People in leadership roles are particularly vulnerable to finding themselves isolated from a huge source of important information – the people in their organization. continue reading »last_img read more

Last space let at Broadgate West

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

Indonesian tin production to see 11% decline in 2020 due to low demand: ITA

first_imgThe company also announced the plan to cut its monthly output by between 20 and 30 percent in March, in response to weak global demand for tin, a metal mostly used for soldering, as production and consumption of everyday electronics slowed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.“We’re expecting solder to be particularly hard-hit by the coronavirus,” said Willoughby via email on Aug 13.An uptick in demand for tinned goods earlier this year, triggered by panic buying of groceries, was insufficient to replace the lower soldering demand.Indonesia’s refined tin exports had also fallen around 4 percent so far this year, down from 67,500 tons last year, said Willoughby, adding that the outlook remained weak. Indonesia, the world’s second-largest tin producer, is expected to see a double-digit decline in refined tin production this year, amid a slump in global demand, according to the International Tin Association (ITA).The ITA expected refined tin production to reach 69,000 tons this year, down 11.5 percent from 78,000 tons last year. The lower production is mainly driven by production cuts from state-owned PT Timah, the world’s top tin producer, according to ITA market analyst James Willoughby in an email interview with The Jakarta Post.Timah’s output sank 26.2 percent year-on-year (yoy) to 27,833 tons in the Jan-June period this year, the company stated in a press statement published on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) website on July 30. “Geographically, we’ve been seeing more Indonesian tin going to China this year. That’s partly due to generally higher prices in China this year, and also due to greater demand in China than the rest of the world,” said Willoughby.Global tin prices dropped to a four-year low of US$13,385 per tonne on March 24, but have since rebounded to $17,580 per tonne as of Aug. 21, based on the international benchmark London Metal Exchange (LME) prices.The ITA expects tin prices to average $17,000 per tonne this year but this figure remains lower than the average $18,608 per tonne last year.“In Indonesia, unfortunately, 95 percent of tin produced is exported, so when tin prices drop drastically, that 95 percent export revenue will be eroded,” said Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef) researcher Abra Talattov on Aug. 21.Timah, the country’s largest tin miner, exports most of its production to Singapore, South Korea, China, the United States and India, which made up 73 percent of its total exports in the first half of the year.“Most of these countries had an economic contraction in the first half,” said Abra. “Only China had positive growth, but at a slower rate.”Singapore’s gross domestic product (GDP) fell a record 13.2 percent year-on-year (yoy) in the second quarter, while the economy also fell 42.9 percent from the previous three months on an annualized and seasonally adjusted basis.Abra suggested that Indonesian effort to develop its downstream mining industries would minimize the country’s exposure to such global market vulnerability.“Going forward, we will more carefully calculate production [targets], taking into account tin price trends,” Timah corporate secretary Abullah Umar told the Post via text message on Aug. 19.Timah booked a Rp 390 billion ($26.4 million) net loss in the Jan-June period this year, a stark contrast to the Rp 205.3 billion net profit it booked in the same period last year.The company had cut costs by 13.5 percent yoy to Rp 7.73 trillion but it was not enough to cover slumping revenue, which fell by a steeper 18.5 percent to Rp 7.98 trillion, amid weak tin demand and prices.Timah’s financial woes would limit its ability to uphold investment plans and to explore new tin reserves, said Indonesian Mining Experts Association (Perhapi) chairman Rizal Kasli.The company is currently developing a multimillion dollar tin smelter in Bangka Belitung as part of the government’s downstreaming plan. Timah had 327,520 tons worth of proven tin reserves last year and 1.04 million tons of potential reserves, also called resources.“Those reserves can last for four to six years of production. Exploration is needed to convert more resources into reserves and extend the company’s operational lifespan,” he said.Topics :last_img read more

Legalizing cannabis could help rebrand Dominica

first_imgHealthLifestyleLocalNews Legalizing cannabis could help rebrand Dominica by: – July 12, 2018 Share Sharing is caring! Members of the Organization of the Reformation of Anti-Cannabis Laws in Dominica (ORACLE) have proposed that Dominica uses legalization of cannabis as a way to rebrand the island.These remarks were made at the Dominica Association of Industry and Commerce (DAIC) annual Eggs and Issues Breakfast held at the Prevo Cinemall on Thursday 12 July 2018.At the event, various stakeholders, including Minister for the Environment, Joseph Isaac and Opposition Leader Lennox Linton, came together to discuss the topic ‘A Look Ahead: Opportunities and Challengers of Legalizing Cannabis in Dominica.’One of the Keynote Speakers, and Member of the ORACLE, Dr. Irvin Pascal stated during his address that the legalization of cannabis could be used as an opening for Dominica.He described the discussion as “ironic” noting that “legalizing cannabis has the potential to address many of our problems.”“It is also a unique opportunity to rebrand Dominica. I find it sounds quite hollow and insincere to say we are the Nature Isle and we have made a plant illegal. I think we should rebrand ourselves and say we are the Nature Island of the world, where all plants are legal,” Dr. Pascal stated.He informed that health statistics in Dominica, especially in relation to non-communicable diseases are “alarming and discouraging.”“We are 11th in the world when it comes to obesity in women. We are 5th in CARICOM when it comes to expenditure for diabetes and hypertension, which takes almost 70 percent of our health budget. And in terms of cancers, alarmingly, we seem to be 3rd per capital in the world. These are alarming statistics for a country like Dominica,” he noted.Dr. Pascal added that the legalization of cannabis would result in “an immediate” decrease in our medical bills and costs.“We could reclaim our preventative health care approach, which is to prevent us from being ill and helping us to stay well. We have opportunities for increased possibilities in healing and wellness,” Dr. Pascal added.Fatal error: Theme at https://www.dominicavibes.dm/wp-content/plugins/image-gallery-reloaded/themes/classic/galleria.theme.min.js could not load, check theme path.– / 14 Tweetcenter_img Share Share 220 Views   no discussionslast_img read more

Mbappe stages miraculous recovery, gets 90% chance to face Atalanta

first_img Read Also: UEFA Champions League ready to restart, at long last First with continuous running, then next weekend with the ball. Hopefully, if everything goes well, the Frenchman would then be able to gradually join the rest of PSG squad members as they prepare to battle the Serie A side. FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 This coming week will be very important for Mbappe as he should have his first contact back on the pitch to see how his ankle responds. Loading… “There’s a 90 percent chance that he is there,” Mbappe’s close pal told L’Equipe. The 21-year-old is responding very well to treatment, so the ‘miracle’ that Thomas Tuchel asked for is close to being fulfilled.center_img Paris Saint-Germain forward Kylian Mbappe is ahead of schedule in his recovery from a sprained ankle from Loic Perrin’s tackle in the Coupe de France final on July 24. Reports suggest the French World Cup winner now has a good chance of facing Atalanta in the quarter-finals of the Champions League on August 12. Initially, it was expected that Mbappe would be out of action for about three week, which would take him to August 14, but  with latest development, the Frenchman could feature in one of PSG’s most important matches in recent years. Promoted Content10 Risky Jobs Some Women Do6 Interesting Ways To Make Money With A Drone8 Superfoods For Growing Hair Back And Stimulating Its GrowthA Hurricane Can Be As Powerful As 10 Atomic BombsGreatest Movies In History Since 1982TV Characters Who Hated Each Other But Later Became Friends20+ Albino Animals That Are Very Rare And UniqueTop 7 Best Car Manufacturers Of All TimeWhat Happens When You Eat Eggs Every Single Day?Who Is The Most Powerful Woman On Earth?7 Universities In The World With The Highest Market Value6 Of The Best 90s Shows That Need To Come Back ASAPlast_img read more

The Gray Cloud Of FCPA Scrutiny Lasted Too Long In 2016

first_imgThis recent post highlighted the origins of corporate Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions in 2016.Continuing with the FCPA statistical feast, this post follows the chronology of FCPA scrutiny to FCPA enforcement and highlights one of the most troubling policy issues when it comes to FCPA enforcement.That is – FCPA scrutiny simply lasts too long. Specifically, as highlighted below, 4.25 years was the median length of time companies that resolved FCPA enforcement actions in 2016 were under scrutiny.Before highlighting the statistics, some general background.The DOJ has long recognized the issues associated with long-protracted investigations. For instance, in this 2005 speech the DOJ’s then Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division stated:“Simply put, speed matters in corporate fraud investigations.  The days of five-year investigations, of agreement after agreement tolling the statute of limitations – while ill-gotten gains are frittered away and investor confidence sinks – are increasingly a thing of the past.”Statute of limitations are ordinarily the remedy the law provides for legal gray clouds.Yet in corporate FCPA enforcement actions, the fundamental black-letter legal principle of statute of limitations seems not to matter because cooperation is the name of the game and to raise bona fide legal arguments such as statute of limitations is not cooperating in an investigation.Given the “carrots” and “sticks” relevant to resolving corporate FCPA enforcement actions, one of the first steps a company the subject of FCPA scrutiny often does to demonstrate its cooperation is agree to toll the statute of limitations or waive any statute of limitations defenses.Given this dynamic, the enforcement agencies face little or no time pressure in bringing corporate FCPA enforcement actions.  The end result is that the gray cloud of FCPA scrutiny often hangs over a company far too long.This dynamic has long been discussed by FCPA commentators.One FCPA commentator stated:“[Companies under FCPA scrutiny are] routinely asked to waive the statute of limitations. They could refuse but none do; refusal might trigger an instant enforcement action against the company or its people. So the waiver gives the feds limitless time to investigate, deliberate, or procrastinate. And no one can force the DOJ or SEC to move on, either with an enforcement action or a declination. The result? Companies [under FCPA scrutiny] get stuck in FCPA limbo.  […] But the DOJ and SEC should always keep one eye on the calendar. The threat of FCPA enforcement […] casts a long shadow. It darkens the future for management, shareholders, lenders, customers, and suppliers. Exactly the problem the statute of limitations was supposed to fix.”Another FCPA commentator stated:“The Justice Department and the SEC attorneys have a duty to manage caseloads and move cases responsibly. I called it “cut and run.”  Either the government has the evidence or it does not – and they now fairly early on what direction a case is heading.”As highlighted in this prior post, members of Congress have also questioned the long time periods associated with FCPA scrutiny.More recently and prominently, Paul Pelletier (former principal deputy chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section) has become a leading voice on this issue. In a dandy Wall Street Journal editorial titled “The Foreign Bribery Sinkhole at Justice,” Pelletier wrote:“Absurdly long and costly investigations, however, may cause companies to reassess the value of reporting FCPA violations to the federal government.When bribery investigations are publicly resolved in a timely fashion, other businesses can more readily identify ongoing bribery schemes operating within their industry or region and ensure that their anti-bribery compliance programs adequately address those current schemes. That opportunity is lost when criminal resolutions drag out for five or more years. Deterrence then is principally the size of the monetary penalty.The Justice Department needs to do more than churn out resolutions to foreign bribery cases notable only for their record-breaking penalties. Rigorous and prompt FCPA enforcement can have a dramatic impact on the insidious and corrosive effect of corruption overseas and provide … restorative justice …”.In this piece Pelletier goes into more-depth on the same topic.  In pertinent part he writes:“[T]he pattern of costly delay in FCPA investigations continues unabated.  While every government investigation and resolution poses unique facts and circumstances that may serve to delay the investigatory process, these recent long-developing FCPA resolutions, together with the findings of the OECD report, are convincingly problematic.  The staggering investigative costs, ultimately borne by employees and shareholders alike, however, also can reach unconscionable levels.[…]The Department of Justice has recently articulated that at least part of the rationale or justification for these interminable investigations is that “[c]ompared to other white collar crime, the challenges associated with FCPA investigations can be much greater.”  The DOJ offered “overseas evidence” as one basis for this greater challenge.But this statement fails to explain the  more than twofold increase in investigatory durations from historical norms.  A dispassionate, experience-based analysis of this overly broad assertion exposes a faulty premise.  Simply put, the DOJ can and must do better.[…]With a cooperating corporation, FCPA investigators routinely find themselves in the unique position of having prompt access to overseas evidence and witnesses without a need to resort to cumbersome international treaty requests.  Such cooperation is much like the prosecution having secured a cooperator with unfettered access to the critical evidence.[…]Regardless of the reason or reasons for these protracted investigations, both the continued vitality of the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement efforts and the prominence of the United States as the global leader of anti-corruption enforcement would seem to demand a renewed effort to dramatically reduce the time frame necessary to achieve resolution.[…]Legitimate enterprises benefit from those kinds of real-time revelations, and criminal political regimes can be immediately identified and deterred.  Moreover, when a criminal resolution discloses and punishes criminal conduct that occurred five or more years earlier, any deterrent effect of the resolution is significantly diminished.  This is particularly true in industries where the overseas corrupt conduct flourishes with abandon.At that late stage, the principal deterrent effect is relegated to the size of the monetary penalty — something the DOJ continues to emphasize with all too much frequency and relish.  As recent cases have demonstrated, lengthy FCPA investigations also place untenably wasteful financial burdens on corporations, their employees and their shareholders.[…]Given that the DOJ’s FCPA unit within the Fraud Section has more than doubled in size from 2009 to today and has been fortified by a dedicated squad of FBI agents, it is puzzling that many of these investigations seem to drag on interminably.  The DOJ must strive to be more than just “FCPA Inc.,” churning out stale resolutions notable only for their record-breaking penalties.”In conclusion Pelletier writes:“The interests of justice are neither served nor advanced when FCPA investigations routinely drag on for five or more years.  Rigorous and prompt FCPA enforcement with respect to current bribery schemes can have a dramatic impact on the insidious and corrosive effect of corruption overseas.  Real-time enforcement is just one component of what must be a larger proactive strategy to root out overseas corruption, which includes punishing the bribe takers as well as the bribe payers and dispossessing the government officials of access to ill-gotten gains.Curing the deficiencies that lead to costly and wasteful delays will require a systemic and sustained effort, primarily by the DOJ.  It will also require a more focused approach by outside counsel.  Although the ameliorative benefits resulting from such change will not be achieved overnight, the long-term vitality and efficacy of the DOJ’s anti-corruption enforcement efforts ultimately rests on the government’s ability to sustainably alter the status quo.”As highlighted here, Pelletier suggested that the high attrition levels at the DOJ likely contribute to the length of FCPA inquiries. As he stated “most FCPA investigations will be passed from prosecutor to prosecutor, almost certainly leading to unnecessarily protracted investigations.” As both the DOJ and SEC are in the midst of much change in light of the upcoming change in Administrations, will this dynamic impact pending instances of FCPA scrutiny?For FCPA Flash podcast episodes discussing the long time periods associated with FCPA scrutiny see here (Paul Pelletier) and here (Homer Moyer – a dean of the FCPA bar). Elevate Your FCPA Research There are several subject matter tags in this post. However, only subscribers to FCPA Professor’s premium search feature can see and use them in research. Efficient and cost-effective FCPA research is just a click away. Elevate Your Researchcenter_img With this background, the post next highlights for all 27 corporate FCPA enforcement actions from 2016 the length of time the company was under FCPA scrutiny.[Note in three instances, it is unclear when a company’s FCPA scrutiny began, in other instances reasonable approximations were made based on generic descriptions of FCPA scrutiny beginning and recognizing that there is a big difference between FCPA scrutiny beginning in January of a year and December of the same year].SAP – unclearSciClone – 5.5 yearsPTC – 4.5 yearsVimpelCom – 4 yearsQualcomm – 5 yearsOlympus – 3.5 yearsNordion – 3.5 yearsNovartis – 3.5 yearsLas Vegas Sands – 5 yearsNortek 1.5 yearsAkamai Technologies 1.5 yearsAnalogic – 4.75 yearsJohnson Controls – 3 yearsLAN Airlines – 5 yearsKey Energy – 2.5 yearsAstraZeneca – 6 yearsNu Skin – 2.5 yearsABInBev – 5 yearsOch-Ziff – 5 yearsHMT – unclearNCH – unclearGlaxoSmithKline – 5 yearsEmbraer – 6 yearsJPMorgan – 3.5 yearsOdebrecht / Braskem – 1.5 yearsTeva – 4.5 yearsGeneral Cable – 3 yearsThe median of the above numbers is 4.25 years.The range of years companies were under FCPA scrutiny were 1.5 years in Nortek and Akamai (in which the SEC specifically mentioned the “expeditious resolutions”) to 6 years (AstraZeneca and Embraer).Not all FCPA enforcement actions are the same of course, but the egregiousness of the conduct does not seem to determine the length of time a company is under FCPA scrutiny. For instance, both AstraZenecea and SciClone were, comparatively-speaking garden-variety type of FCPA enforcement actions, and the scrutiny lasted 6 years and 5.5 years. On the other hand, both VimpelCom and Odebrecht / Braskem were egregious FCPA enforcement actions and the scrutiny lasted a shorter 4 years and a much shorter 1.5 years.When assessing the long time periods associated with FCPA scrutiny, it is important to keep in mind that both the DOJ/FBI and SEC have specific FCPA units that are uniquely tasked with investigating and prosecuting FCPA offenses.Moreover, it also important to recognize that close to 40% of corporate FCPA enforcement actions in 2016 were the result of voluntarily disclosures. In this regard, the following statements from the General Cable resolution documents are representative of the dynamics in such voluntary disclosures.In the words of the DOJ:The company “conducted a thorough internal investigation; made regular factual presentations and proactively provided updates to the Fraud Section; voluntarily made foreign-based employees available for interviews in the United States; produced documents, including translations, to the Fraud Section from foreign countries in ways that did not implicate foreign data privacy laws; collected, analyzed, and organized voluminous evidence and information for the Fraud Section; and identified, investigated, and disclosed conduct to the Fraud Section that was outside the scope of its initial voluntary self-disclosure”In the words of the SEC:General Cable “further provided complete and timely cooperation with the staff by providing detailed presentations on the key findings of the investigations, and promptly producing all relevant documents and information (including thousands of documents translated into English), chronologies, key document binders, interview downloads, and forensic accounting analyses. GCC also made its current or former employees available for interviews by the staff upon request, including facilitating certain employees to travel to the United States from abroad for interviews.”last_img read more