Entries by David Duccini

It was one year ago today that we launched The Big Idea Blog!

http://thebigidea.com/index.php?/archives/2009/08/21.html

Thanks to you we're stoked about trying for another year.

Sincerely,

David V Duccini & David Walbridge

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

Andrew McAfee's Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization's Toughest Challenges introduced me to the concept of a Broadcast Search. This is different than plain old search.

In broadcast search you put your question out to the world (or a subset of it) -- in hopes of having someone see/answer or connect you to the answer.

It's nothing new per se - Request for Comments/Quotes (RFC's and RFQ's have been around forever) -- it's just that collaborative tools enable it much easier than before. In most implementations it either uses a message-board type of model or micro-blogging.

I've recently become somewhat of a soft-tip dartboard junky -- I bought an Arachnid Cricket Pro 800 -- and as Arnold Palmer is oft quoted, "the more I practice, the luckier I get!"

The board comes from the same folks that make the Galaxy II that sit in many bars -- but at $3,500 I just don't see acquiring one anytime soon. The CP 800 is veritable bargain at about $250.

Surely there must be a middle option? The range between the "top of the bottom" at $250 and the top tier of $3,500 -- well, that just smells like opportunity to me!

At first I was thinking that Arachnid should have a $350-$550 priced board that puts a 4" touch lcd in the wall mount that runs the same games/os as the Galaxy II.

Make it IP enabled, add an option for a web-cam and you could play darts with anyone else in the world remotely!

Then it occurred to me. Don't make the board smarter -- move that all to the PC/MAC and make the board bluetooth enabled !! You skinny the board down to its true round shape, and then you have the PC handle the game play, the scoring and tournament play, web-cam and audio/mic enabled. This way the board gets cheaper and you sell software/upgrades -- annuity baby! And when I say "PC" I also mean your iPhone, Palm Pre, Android smartphone, or little netbook that sits idle most of the time.

Brilliant huh?

It doesn't exist as far as I know -- so I'm putting Web 2.0 to work. I'm broadcast searching for someone to get inspired to make us one!

Today's Big Idea: If something doesn't exist, invent it. To invent it faster, call it into existence using broadcast search.

It's a bit like being a magician when you think about it....invoke the words and watch it appear....

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

With the second quarter of 2010 now behind us, it's time to take a look at my peer-to-peer lending portfolios to see how we're doing:

                        Prosper      LendingClub
Total Deposits:	        $4,500          $2,500 
Total Interest Paid:	$160.53 	$100.42
Doubtful Accounts:	    -	        $73.89 
Total active notes:	  178	          115
Notes paid in full:	   10	           1
Delinquent Notes:	    -	           3
Reported Yield:	        18.54%          12.71%
Actual IRR*:	        11.51%           5.17%

I'm using Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to give me a much more accurate picture of the actual returns from each network:

Internal rates of return are commonly used to evaluate the desirability of investments or projects. The higher a project's internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake the project. Assuming all other factors are equal among the various projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and undertaken first.

LendingClub's calculated IRR is much lower due to the discounting of the "doubtful accounts" -- an accounting method that basically subtracts those notes that are probably going to default.

It's clear that I have a higher confidence in Prosper at this point than I do in LendingClub based on the higher investment. The cause and effect should be pretty evident.

Some interesting observations, year to date:

The delinquencies really bother me. To be clear, I'm not harboring any ill-will towards LendingClub -- my ire is directed squarely at the deadbeats who ripped us all off. I'm actually amused by my own reaction -- since I don't have the same response to some of the individual stocks I own that are 30-40% underwater for significantly deeper potential losses. The difference I think is that the market for that security has many players, whereas the borrower is a single individual. The stock represents a largely faceless organization, but one that is an on-going concern. The borrower is an individual that is basically trying to avoid a financial responsibility to a number of other individuals who after reading their request decided to invest in that person individually. Breaking that commitment is bad karma.

Doubtful Note 1: "Paid Back In Flash (Loan id: 480843) $1,000 request

Description:

"Borrower added on 01/29/10 > I simply need a temporary loan to get my school books and pay for some other school expenses while I wait for scholarship money I'm supposed to receive to come in. Unfortunately, I don't get the scholarship money until the middle of March and school starts February 1st."

This individual (originally a "B" credit risk) hasn't made a single payment on a $1,000 loan that would have amounted to a $32.39/month payment. Really?

Lesson Learned: Don't lend money to students.

Doubtful Note 2: "Ready to get out of debt. (Loan id: 474397) $12,000 request

Description:

"I will be using the money to pay off all of my credit card debt.

I do have a small car loan and a some student loans.

I work in Information Technology @ UW Medical Foundation troubleshooting and fixing printer, desktop, & software issues."

This individual declared bankruptcy after making one payment.

I suspect that this was all calculated by him/her to move their credit card debt onto an unsecured debt instrument, which in my mind is fraud. This one pisses me off the most, even though I'm only out $24.43 -- the principle of the matter makes me want to find this person (who lives in Verona, WI) -- and take out a billboard ad with their picture on it

Lesson Learned: Don't lend money to people that have been employed less than a year.

Doubtful Note 3: Consolidation Request (Loan id: 486250) $16,000

Description:

"Borrower added on 03/01/10 > Very reliable and will pay monthly payments on time. Professional looking to consolidate loans."

Made one payment (late) and now all subsequent payments have failed, referred to external collections agency.

Lesson Learned: Watch the number of credit inquiries in the last six months. Anything over 2-3 probably means they are getting desperate

My Current Lending Strategies

I'm letting the LendingClub account go into a maintenance mode -- I basically reinvest whatever principal and interest I get every couple of weeks back into A/B grade notes of borrowers that are homeowners. At this stage unless I see some better, more aggressive action on their collections attempts, I'll probably start bleeding off the account in November until all notes are settled or discharged. It's not worth my time to manage a low ROI -- I'd be better off putting the money into a Municipal Bond fund on auto-pilot.

As for Prosper, I have a couple of search filters setup. My primary filter is looking for "repeat borrowers" -- those individuals that have shown a successful track record (80% on time) ability to make and keep their payment promises. My higher risk filters then look for homeowners with zero delinquencies and low inquiries. After that, the highest risk is based on funding level from other lenders and individual stories, needs. I almost never invest in someone's "business idea" -- unless they are a repeat borrower who is using the funds for inventory or expansion of going concern. Also, so far I'm only investing the minimum $25 in any given note to minimize the maximum exposure (diversification). I see new lenders on there bidding hundreds to thousands of dollars in a single note! They clearly have way more faith in humanity than I do at this point....

Today's Big Idea: Peer-to-peer lending can be more rewarding but as with all investments, due diligence matters.

Figure out what target profile aligns with your own style and stick to it. Remember your time is worth something, and being a P2P "loan officer" can take a lot of time.

Don't be swayed by people's passionate pleas for help -- the drowning man may take you down with him.

PS: I've added a new RSS Feed for all the posts related to Peer-to-Peer Lending -- subscribe or bookmark this link!

* The combined IRR for both accounts is 7.68%, and technically the current overall default rate is about 1%

Today's change agent entry is inspired by the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who is credited with coining the phrase:

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

and is a guiding principle in the benefits of openness and transparency in everything from politics to customer service.

Having lived in Japan for a couple of years and subsequently taking two years of college Japanese, I have a bit of a soft spot for all things Japanese.

I cheered when Takeru Kobayashi decimated the previous world record for eating hot dogs.

So this year when his name started bubbling up in my news filters, I naturally started following the developing story. It seems that Nathans Famous, the Coney Island hot dog company who has been holding a hot dog eating competition on and off since 1916 somewhere along the line out-sourced its marketing to something called "Major League Eating", which from everything I can gather is a shell for-profit corporation trying to not only capitalize on someone else's future colon-cancer, but hell-bent on forming a monopolistic death grip on what used to be a common and free competition held at every county fare (such as pie eating contests etc)

While the spin doctors like Richard Shea of MLE have been trying to shift the blame to Takeru for having a "contract dispute", further trying to use FUD tactics and character assassination by painting him as an unstable individual, reading Takeru's account is a lot more authentic and genuine.

We may never know the full story, since there are always three sides (yours, mine, and the truth) -- what is evident from the public information is that MLE wants to control Takeru and bar him from competing in any non-MLE sponsored event. Period. The irony is not lost on me: On Independence Day someone wants to keep someone from being independent.

Lets translate that:

A for-profit corporation, who's only value-add is providing promotional support in exchange for gathering fee's from advertisers, wants to enslave a human being who's primary means of income is from winning eating contests and barring that individual from competing in any competition that it isn't deriving some economic benefit from.

As far as I can tell, Major League Eating is exhibiting all the classic signs of rent-seeking (from WikiPedia):

"rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth."

If anything this suggests that there is an opportunity here for someone to form the "World Eating Federation" a non-profit who's primary motivator is to funnel its revenues in to providing stock to food-shelves or sustainable agriculture in developing nations. Karmically that would help balance things out.

What I've discovered in my little ranting missives on Facebook is that merely mentioning "Nathans Famous" in my updates, its automatically showing up on their facebook page. How amazing cool is that as a lever for change agents to pull? Its not full sunshine, but more like a laser pointer.

Today's Big Idea is this: In social-networks, use and distribute laser-pointers to illuminate bad behavior.

In open source, Eric S. Raymond extols that "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" -- an application of what Justice Brandeis means when he says "sunlight is the best disinfectant"

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

My general approach to planning for outcomes boils down to the following three guidelines:

1. Hope for the best
2. Plan for the worst
3. Expect to land somewhere in between

It goes back to my epiphany of figuring out why so many people are so unhappy most of the time: Bad expectation management.

In corporate America this is ever so present with projects that fail, and usually spectacularly. You know the projects/initiatives/corporate mandates I'm talking about -- the ones where everyone is having hall conversations about how there is no way project X is going to come in on time, let alone even close to the original budget and likely won't solve the underlying unmet need of its intended audience. Over-promising and under-delivering.

Failure in and of itself isn't a bad thing -- in fact when you "fail fast" you achieve actual agility. Practice and experience controlled failure and you achieve fault-tolerance.

Failure to manage expectations on the other hand, comes down to two, almost diametrically opposed forces at work: Faith, or blind hopeful optimism versus sheer incompetence. I say almost opposed because you'll frequently find both of these qualities in the same person. It is most dangerous when that person is in a leadership role. Let me explain.

As human's we have a unlimited capacity for self-delusion. The path to ruin starts with a fundamental need to be "right" and almost always begins with the pattern of behavior called "seeking confirming evidence." We gather "success stories" about other people in what we think are similar situations and hold them up as iconic examples of why we do or should do X. In corporate America, if the evidence can't be found, it's invented -- created out of thin air. Two examples from a recent trip I made through a Fortune 500 medical device manufacturer.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda

Jon* was a starry-eyed visionary executive -- at least that's how he saw himself. He probably had a semi permanent shrine to Steve Jobs somewhere, if not physically, mentally in the big mansion he believed he would own someday. Jon was desperate to be "right" -- when his closest lieutenants, the ones that weren't officious sycophants, disagreed with the direction he was taking the division, what did Jon do? He hired an outside consulting firm to help validate his beliefs. When this highly respected Bay-area ideation firm didn't shower Jon with kudo's and high-fives, thus depriving him of his richly deserved "atta-boy" pats on the back from his boss, what did Jon do next? He hired another firm to get a second opinion.

This second firm dispensed the glowing adoration Jon craved so much to the point where this companies CEO would jet around the globe with Jon to gather user stories that helped confirm Jon's beliefs. However, when that firms independent survey's came back negative, Jon decided to do his own survey of company clients to get the word from them directly. Third times a charm, right? Fortunately by this point Jon had spent so much money and wasted so much time that baseline projects were slipping because of resource constraints and his new manager wanted to know why.

In the end, the results of this third survey yielded the same results that everyone internally had been trying to tell Jon since day one: its a bad idea! When word got out that their top customers not only didn't want what Jon thought they wanted, but would actually stop buying any product if Jons change in service model went through, the division president stripped him of title, budget, and resources. Rumor has it he had to be told three times by the division president that he was "being redirected" before the exasperated boss told Jon to "put a bullet in it."

To this day Jon thinks that it had nothing to do with the vision, it was the teams fault for not explaining it well enough. Last I heard Jon is being "managed out" -- falling from being a Division VP to a "sole contributor" -- I'm sure they are hoping he'll quit since firing him for arrogance and incompetence is harder than it sounds.

All because of a desperate need to be right, instead of passionate need to do right.

Sometimes, Where There is Smoke, There are Mirrors

This is the story of justification after the fact. One of the divisions had invested heavily into a technology believed to be a veritable gold mine that would set fire to product development. After nearly 5 years of upgrades and enhancements, and day long training sessions to use the tool, its adoption rate and usage was a tiny fraction of the number of seat licenses that had been purchased.

When it was proposed that a fresh look at collaboration tools be kicked off, the team responsible for managing this monstrosity immediately joined in the fray to help with "lessons learned" -- every new potential system that was up for serious consideration, somehow this old tool magically "does that and more", or "its coming in the next version." It really started to make me wonder if my fellow team mates weren't actually paid shills by the vendor. Anyway, in order to try and build more excitement the team started sending out weekly "success stories" of how the tool had miraculously delivered on its promise.

When the team failed to sway anyone's opinion, their management proposed hiring an outside consultant to come in and help with the assessment. It took all of about 10 minutes to figure out that the consultant had been constrained to help justify the sunk-cost project, and that there was in fact going to be no independent evaluation. I politely withdrew from any sponsorship of the project at this point. The last I heard, the only people excited about the consultants findings are the people that hired him. Everyone else has pretty much checked out and given up on the idea that any real change can happen.

The fastest way to disenfranchise your team is to pretend to be transparent. Not every sign of smoke means fire. Unless you're talking about what management is smoking in which case they ought to be fired.

Never Trust an Opinion You Have To Buy

Wether it's having your palm-read, tea leaves, tarot, ouiji board, or just paying Accenture to tell you want you want to hear -- when it comes to opinions, you get what you pay for. Remember, it takes courage to tell the emperor he has no clothes.

The common playbook in corporate America is that when management doesn't like the answer they are getting (from their own highly qualified, talented people inside the company who are presumably motivated by the same desire to do the right thing), they go outside to find someone to tell them what they want to hear. Personally I think this is grounds for a demotion in rank, since it calls into question their sense of fidelity, not to mention just basic good judgment. It shows that they are not working from a common goal or need, but rather from a personal hidden agenda to be vindicated. To be right.

In other words, they believe that the organization exists to serve themselves instead of understanding they serve the organization.

Today's Big Idea: Things that make you say WTF!?! about your job are probably good indicators that something is about to fail.

Like a good used car salesman once said, "If you get the customer to ask the right questions, the answers are easy!" If you can't get your management to ask better questions, politely ask to be taken off those projects that are death marches and watch from the sidelines. In these cases its better for your sanity to be a spectator than one of the champions on the field when the lions are set loose or the buzzards come in after to pick the remains.

* Not his actual name per se...

Not using RSS yet? You should be! You can also get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog