Spending on research
Lifeblood of innovation
Driving future growth
Lifeblood of innovation
Driving future growth
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Saturday, October 17, 2015
The Haiku of Finance for 10/17/15
White paper blizzard
Competing for Web eyeballs
Content for download
Competing for Web eyeballs
Content for download
Interwebs White Paper Bombardment
The Internet's marketing gurus are on white paper production overdrive. I download a few guides every so often to stay current on how content marketers think. A few white papers aren't worth the digits it takes to publish them, but most are okay. The biggest unknown is estimating their shelf lives.
Internet marketing advances at light speed. Tactics that worked last year may be counterproductive today. A white paper describing old best practices may be a waste of time to execute now. Every marketer now rides the content marketing trend. Any think piece that doesn't address how content fills out every layer of the marketing funnel comes up short.
Marketing guidelines that depend too heavily on text are also suspect in an age when Pinterest and Instagram make images central to communication. White papers are fine for deep dives into topics that require step-by-step instructions. Marrying them to infographics that grab attention keeps them relevant.
I have plans for tons more white papers here at Alfidi Capital. The clean look of my main website's new design makes me want to put up a whole bunch more research publications. I challenge myself to write for an audience that I will never personally meet. White paper readers are global. They also exist in the far future. Whatever I write must translate into formats that someone has yet to invent. Publishing grants vicarious immortality.
Internet marketing advances at light speed. Tactics that worked last year may be counterproductive today. A white paper describing old best practices may be a waste of time to execute now. Every marketer now rides the content marketing trend. Any think piece that doesn't address how content fills out every layer of the marketing funnel comes up short.
Marketing guidelines that depend too heavily on text are also suspect in an age when Pinterest and Instagram make images central to communication. White papers are fine for deep dives into topics that require step-by-step instructions. Marrying them to infographics that grab attention keeps them relevant.
I have plans for tons more white papers here at Alfidi Capital. The clean look of my main website's new design makes me want to put up a whole bunch more research publications. I challenge myself to write for an audience that I will never personally meet. White paper readers are global. They also exist in the far future. Whatever I write must translate into formats that someone has yet to invent. Publishing grants vicarious immortality.
Monday, August 03, 2015
The Haiku of Finance for 08/03/15
Knowledge foundation
STEM experts engage public
Science brings us wealth
STEM experts engage public
Science brings us wealth
Financial Sarcasm Roundup for 08/03/15: Special Scientific Edition
I attended an excellent lecture tonight at the Commonwealth Club by Dr. Eugenie Scott, the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. The room was packed and I was lucky to get a seat way in the back. There is no way I can be sarcastic about a distinguished senior scientist outlining a method for improving Americans' scientific understanding. Her logic was impeccable, and her credentials for reaching out to unscientific Americans are unimpeachable. My only challenge tonight is to get Americans to listen to her. My fellow citizens shall thus be the object of my sarcasm.
Dr. Scott mentioned that the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators track several aspects of scientific development in the United States. Readers should note that this resource does not track creationism, intelligent design, Biblical mentions of dinosaurs, or other things that Americans may believe if they are not exposed to science. She cited evidence that facts alone are insufficient to convert science-averse people; some emotional trigger must often be present. I guess it works like Paul the Apostle's conversion on the road to Damascus, but in reverse . . . you know, like, away from a non-rational belief towards a belief supported by evidence.
If the main engine for climate change denial is political conservatism, and the main objectors to evolution are religious conservatives, then conservatives have a lot of work to do. I should fault the conservative business elites (many of whom are closet agnostics) for cynically funding troglodyte local and state politicians. Pandering to low-information voters has a cost. Come on, conservatives, you don't need the tax breaks and zoning favors so badly that we have to hamstring the nation's scientific education as an unintended consequence. Liberal politicians will legislate the same breaks if business elites can stomach their rhetoric.
The preferred communication method for Dr. Scott and her allies when engaging unscientific American leaders is the presentation of a messenger the denier audience finds trustworthy. Dr. Scott wants us to find thought leaders from the same tribes as the deniers who will assuage their concerns about bad consequences. Maybe I should offer myself as an ambassador of reason. After all, I have a Notre Dame degree I've never used and I've met plenty of people from that school who fit the denier pattern. I was slightly sympathetic to climate change skepticism myself until I actually read more science and less denier propaganda. The Commonwealth Club's Climate One program really helped, although some of their experts really need to polish their arguments. I did not need any emotional argument to move my opinions; I simply compared the two sides of the argument on their evidence and found the skeptics to be deficient. My dual backgrounds in finance and military intelligence make that behavior a force of habit. I never needed any convincing that evolution works as advertised, because I've met many fellow "humans" whose behavior qualifies them for the chimpanzee cage at a zoo.
Americans have rested on their scientific laurels for long enough. The amazing output of our government and university labs leaves most Americans in the dark. People don't grok the connection between rising living standards and commercialized research. It's time to present American science deniers with emotional arguments that hit them in the pocketbook. Show people how much poorer and sadder they'll be without STEM-educated experts inventing gadgets and materials they use daily. The American way of life is not negotiable, as former President George H.W. Bush said prior to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. That sounds like a very conservative rationale for supporting the STEM education and pro-science public dialogues that will enhance our way of life.
Dr. Scott mentioned that the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators track several aspects of scientific development in the United States. Readers should note that this resource does not track creationism, intelligent design, Biblical mentions of dinosaurs, or other things that Americans may believe if they are not exposed to science. She cited evidence that facts alone are insufficient to convert science-averse people; some emotional trigger must often be present. I guess it works like Paul the Apostle's conversion on the road to Damascus, but in reverse . . . you know, like, away from a non-rational belief towards a belief supported by evidence.
If the main engine for climate change denial is political conservatism, and the main objectors to evolution are religious conservatives, then conservatives have a lot of work to do. I should fault the conservative business elites (many of whom are closet agnostics) for cynically funding troglodyte local and state politicians. Pandering to low-information voters has a cost. Come on, conservatives, you don't need the tax breaks and zoning favors so badly that we have to hamstring the nation's scientific education as an unintended consequence. Liberal politicians will legislate the same breaks if business elites can stomach their rhetoric.
The preferred communication method for Dr. Scott and her allies when engaging unscientific American leaders is the presentation of a messenger the denier audience finds trustworthy. Dr. Scott wants us to find thought leaders from the same tribes as the deniers who will assuage their concerns about bad consequences. Maybe I should offer myself as an ambassador of reason. After all, I have a Notre Dame degree I've never used and I've met plenty of people from that school who fit the denier pattern. I was slightly sympathetic to climate change skepticism myself until I actually read more science and less denier propaganda. The Commonwealth Club's Climate One program really helped, although some of their experts really need to polish their arguments. I did not need any emotional argument to move my opinions; I simply compared the two sides of the argument on their evidence and found the skeptics to be deficient. My dual backgrounds in finance and military intelligence make that behavior a force of habit. I never needed any convincing that evolution works as advertised, because I've met many fellow "humans" whose behavior qualifies them for the chimpanzee cage at a zoo.
Americans have rested on their scientific laurels for long enough. The amazing output of our government and university labs leaves most Americans in the dark. People don't grok the connection between rising living standards and commercialized research. It's time to present American science deniers with emotional arguments that hit them in the pocketbook. Show people how much poorer and sadder they'll be without STEM-educated experts inventing gadgets and materials they use daily. The American way of life is not negotiable, as former President George H.W. Bush said prior to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. That sounds like a very conservative rationale for supporting the STEM education and pro-science public dialogues that will enhance our way of life.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Applying RAND Methods To Finance
The RAND Corporation's CEO spoke at the Commonwealth Club last night and I scored a front row seat. It helps that the Club's own CEO was once a RAND analyst. Almost all of RAND's research focuses on cost-benefit planning tools that public policy makers can use. I noticed that they have published some research on behavioral finance, economics, and energy. Wall Street can use that stuff free of charge. Alfidi Capital's never-ending search for financial insights means there is gold to be mined in RAND's methods.
RAND's CEO mentioned the corporation's early work in dynamic programming, linear programming, and game theory. Analysts in many sectors still use those methods today. Finance types would have used variations of the Solver program for decades to automate their optimization searches in those methods. I'm increasingly certain they use Python programs today. Moving objects around saves time over running long scripting routines. The operations research that RAND and other government analysts perfected after WWII is now heavily used in Python applications. Python even handles cost-benefit analysis, RAND's bread and butter.
I was intrigued to hear RAND's optimism over data visualization tools. Python can do that too, so making data comprehensible to semi-literate policymakers is within every competent analyst's reach. Technocrats who design our society's future policies now have compelling visual sales tools as the rest of society reverts to pre-literacy levels of comprehension. I bet RAND also uses the scenario planning method that Royal Dutch Shell and Global Business Network have used for decades. My web search for jobs involving scenario planning shows a few listings that require proficiency with - you guessed it - the Python language. There's no escaping coding as literacy these days. I also noticed a few references to manipulating data stored in Hadoop architectures during scenario analysis. It's all about Hadoop and Python for finance types who dream of the C-suite for the next decade.
RAND's concerns over threats to the future of objective research are solvable. Their CEO's main concerns were the short attention spans for digesting longer research products and the political polarization in Washington that discourages objective policy solutions. First, consider that Arthur McCollum's Eight Action Memo of 1940 summarized US strategic aims in the Pacific with just six pages of text. Any RAND report with a one-page executive summary is digestible by policy makers who don't code and won't read in depth. Second, solving the polarization gridlock means presenting research conclusions that are summarized in ways that both liberals and conservatives can understand. This may require drafting two separate executive summaries for a research product - one written with liberal language, one written with a conservative language - and circulating them separately on Capitol Hill. Each political audience can then perceive the project summary in language it understands. Either political interpretation is valid so long as they both point to the same RAND policy recommendations.
I should have applied for the RAND Arroyo Center Army Fellows Program while I was on active duty but it's probably too late in my career to get a slot. I took a lot of analytical coursework through Army distance learning and my MBA program, and I can still break out my old notes on PERT/CPM and minimax problems if needed. The stuff comes in handy. If RAND needs my help, they know where to reach me. I'm available and affordable.
RAND's CEO mentioned the corporation's early work in dynamic programming, linear programming, and game theory. Analysts in many sectors still use those methods today. Finance types would have used variations of the Solver program for decades to automate their optimization searches in those methods. I'm increasingly certain they use Python programs today. Moving objects around saves time over running long scripting routines. The operations research that RAND and other government analysts perfected after WWII is now heavily used in Python applications. Python even handles cost-benefit analysis, RAND's bread and butter.
I was intrigued to hear RAND's optimism over data visualization tools. Python can do that too, so making data comprehensible to semi-literate policymakers is within every competent analyst's reach. Technocrats who design our society's future policies now have compelling visual sales tools as the rest of society reverts to pre-literacy levels of comprehension. I bet RAND also uses the scenario planning method that Royal Dutch Shell and Global Business Network have used for decades. My web search for jobs involving scenario planning shows a few listings that require proficiency with - you guessed it - the Python language. There's no escaping coding as literacy these days. I also noticed a few references to manipulating data stored in Hadoop architectures during scenario analysis. It's all about Hadoop and Python for finance types who dream of the C-suite for the next decade.
RAND's concerns over threats to the future of objective research are solvable. Their CEO's main concerns were the short attention spans for digesting longer research products and the political polarization in Washington that discourages objective policy solutions. First, consider that Arthur McCollum's Eight Action Memo of 1940 summarized US strategic aims in the Pacific with just six pages of text. Any RAND report with a one-page executive summary is digestible by policy makers who don't code and won't read in depth. Second, solving the polarization gridlock means presenting research conclusions that are summarized in ways that both liberals and conservatives can understand. This may require drafting two separate executive summaries for a research product - one written with liberal language, one written with a conservative language - and circulating them separately on Capitol Hill. Each political audience can then perceive the project summary in language it understands. Either political interpretation is valid so long as they both point to the same RAND policy recommendations.
I should have applied for the RAND Arroyo Center Army Fellows Program while I was on active duty but it's probably too late in my career to get a slot. I took a lot of analytical coursework through Army distance learning and my MBA program, and I can still break out my old notes on PERT/CPM and minimax problems if needed. The stuff comes in handy. If RAND needs my help, they know where to reach me. I'm available and affordable.
Friday, July 18, 2014
How US R&D Stacks Up With Other Data
Analysts should not have to guess about a business's R&D spending. It's always in the financial statements for publicly held companies. Finding the numbers requires some effort because FASB's SFAS 2 requires R&D to be expensed as it is incurred, meaning R&D costs are usually considered to be operating costs rather than capex. Assembling a comparable number for the entire US is a different project because the data is scattered in several locations. Government data offers a starting point for the R&D component of spending.
The National Science Foundation has a couple of interesting data sets. Check out NSF's National Patterns of R&D Resources for a rundown of public R&D spending by source and sector. The National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators report includes a chapter comparing the US R&D commitment to international competitors. The NCSES InfoBrief for December 2013 has further breakdowns on multiyear R&D spending. The general conclusions of these three data sources all comport with each other. Their bottom line is that the US is losing its global lead in R&D spending. It is worth noting that business R&D spending far outpaces both federal and university spending.
I am intrigued by the US's R&D data because this spending helps determine the nation's future innovation capacity and thus its prosperity. I would like to explore whether a relationship exists between strong R&D spending and a normal US economy. I will have to define my terms carefully before I proceed. I do not yet have a firm definition of what constitutes either variable. "Strong" R&D spending may be what drives normal GDP growth, and a "normal" economy may be one in which Tobin's Q has a value of 1.0 at its equilibrium. The St. Louis Fed's FRED historial chart of Tobin's Q shows a big spike in the 1990s when IT spending for Internet connectivity took off. I would be very intrigued to discover whether a similar spike in national R&D spending contributed to that spike. It may of course be merely a reflection of the insane NASDAQ valuations for tech companies in that era. Perhaps a normal economy displays a "Warren Buffett Indicator" close to its historical average.
Be patient as I work through this research idea. I have other demands on my time.
The National Science Foundation has a couple of interesting data sets. Check out NSF's National Patterns of R&D Resources for a rundown of public R&D spending by source and sector. The National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators report includes a chapter comparing the US R&D commitment to international competitors. The NCSES InfoBrief for December 2013 has further breakdowns on multiyear R&D spending. The general conclusions of these three data sources all comport with each other. Their bottom line is that the US is losing its global lead in R&D spending. It is worth noting that business R&D spending far outpaces both federal and university spending.
I am intrigued by the US's R&D data because this spending helps determine the nation's future innovation capacity and thus its prosperity. I would like to explore whether a relationship exists between strong R&D spending and a normal US economy. I will have to define my terms carefully before I proceed. I do not yet have a firm definition of what constitutes either variable. "Strong" R&D spending may be what drives normal GDP growth, and a "normal" economy may be one in which Tobin's Q has a value of 1.0 at its equilibrium. The St. Louis Fed's FRED historial chart of Tobin's Q shows a big spike in the 1990s when IT spending for Internet connectivity took off. I would be very intrigued to discover whether a similar spike in national R&D spending contributed to that spike. It may of course be merely a reflection of the insane NASDAQ valuations for tech companies in that era. Perhaps a normal economy displays a "Warren Buffett Indicator" close to its historical average.
Be patient as I work through this research idea. I have other demands on my time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)