Podcasts about nuemann

  For the first time ever, parents going through IVF can use whole genome sequencing to screen their embryos for hundreds of conditions. Harness the power of genetics to keep your family safe, with Orchid. Check them out at orchidhealth.com. On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks about AI, the singularity and the post-human future, with James D. Miller, a Smith College economist, host of the podcast Future Strategist and the author of Singularity Rising: Surviving and Thriving in a Smarter, Richer, and More Dangerous World. Miller and Razib first met at 2008's “Singularity Summit” in San Jose, and though Singularity Rising was published in 2012, some of the ideas were already presented in earlier talks, including at that conference. More than 15 years since Miller began formulating his ideas, Razib asks him how the theses and predictions in his book have held up, and how they compared to Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Coming. On this last point, Miller is very bullish on Kurzweil's prediction that artificial intelligence will surpass that of humans by 2030. He also believes that the “intelligence explosion,” Kurzweil's “technological singularity” when AI transforms the earth in unimaginable ways through exponential rates of change will in fact come to pass. But while Kurzweil predicts that the singularity will usher in an era of immortality for our species, Miller has a more measured take. He believes AI will drive massive gains in economic productivity, from cultural creativity to new drug development regimes (one of the original rationales behind IBM's AI program). But while Kurzweil anticipates exaltation of conscious human life into an almost divine state, Miller suspects that AI may eventually lead to our demise. He estimates a 10% probability that Kurzweil is correct that we will become immortal, and a 90% probability that AI will simply shove us aside on this planet as it begins to consume all available resources. Overall, Miller is satisfied with the predictions in the first third of Singularity Rising. Computational technology has become far more powerful than it was in the late aughts, with a supercomputer in everyone's pocket. Though the advances in AI seem to exhibit discontinuities, in particular with the recent seminal inventions of transformers and large language models coming to the fore, the smoothed curve aligns with Kurzweil's 2030 target for human-level intelligence. On the other hand, where Miller has been disappointed is the merely modest advances in biological human engineering, with far fewer leaps forward than he had anticipated. Razib and Miller discuss whether this is due to limitations in the science, or issues of governance and ethics. Miller closes making the case for a program of cloning the great 20th-century genius John von Nuemann and the statesman Lee Kuan Yew. While the computational innovation driving AI seems to have advanced on schedule, and the biological revolution has not taken off, the last section of Miller's book focused on the economic impacts of the impending singularity. He still believes the next 10-20 years will be incredible, as our economy and way of life are both transformed for the good. Until that is, humans become obsolete in the face of the nearly god-like forms of AI that will emerge around 2050. Until then, Miller anticipates the next generation will see rapid changes as people make career shifts every half a decade or so as jobs become redundant or automated. If Singularity Rising proves correct, the next generation will be defined by what the economist Joseph Schumpeter termed “creative destruction.” If Miller is correct, it may be the last human generation.

Jn 1:43-51 Jesus decided to go to Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow me." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and also the prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth." But Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Here is a true child of Israel. There is no duplicity in him." Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree." Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this." And he said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

BoDeans guitarist and founding member Kurt Nuemann joins Jimmy Warren on Guitar Talk. www.guitartalkofficial.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/guitartalkandmetalmadness/support

The highly entertaining multi-part real-life crime documentary series, CATCHING A KILLER, offers an unprecedented 360-degree access into a thoroughly modern murder investigation. This innovative and ratings-winning series, deemed the ‘Real life Inspector Morse', follows major crime investigations from start to finish. Each documentary film is self-contained and follows the work of one major investigation – covering some of the most serious and challenging crimes facing this tri-county force. Beyond the blue flashing lights, how does a major crime investigation work? How do partner agencies come together to support a major investigation? And how much work really goes on behind the scenes to gain a successful outcome in court? Co-director and Executive Producer Jezza Neumann joins us for a conversation on the backstory that led to this impeccably produced five-part documentary series, gaining the confidence of law enforcement and members of the victim's families and the stress and strain of being ready to pick up a camera on a moments notice. To watch go to: topic.com/coming-soon-to-topic For updates and screenings go to: topic.com

Aimee has been a certified nurse practitioner since 2007. Working in healthcare has been her calling since high school. She received a bachelor's degree in human biology from the University of Wisconsin - Green Bay and an MSN from Vanderbilt University. Aimee discovered her true passion in 2012 when at the age of 28 she was diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer. This spurred her love for nutrition, clean living, wellness, and functional medicine.  Aimee has struggled with her health issues (like gut problems, thyroid issues, adrenal and hormone problems) since her cancer treatment  and because of functional medicine her health and quality of life have drastically improved. Aimee has since pursued a post-master's certificate in holistic health studies and is a certified functional medicine provider through the Institute for Functional Medicine.Aimee is passionate about digging deeper and working to discover the root causes of dysfunction and educating her patients. Clinically she is very interested in helping people with hormone problems, bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), fertility optimization, and gut health. She embraces all modalities of healing and believes that true healing often comes from a blend of work in physical, emotional, and energetic levels. In addition to being an NP she is also a master Reiki practitioner. Links From the Episode:Minnesota Vitality & Anti-Aging Center: https://www.mnvaac.com/Minnesota Vitality & Anti-Aging Center on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mnvaacMinnesota Vitality & Anti- Aging Center on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/minnesotavitality/Aimee's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aimeeneumann_np/

Thank you to our 2021 Sponsor, River Rat USA. For the ultimate river smallmouth vessel visit https://riverratusa.com/

Thank you to our 2021 Sponsor, River Rat USA. For the ultimate river smallmouth vessel visit https://riverratusa.com/

This members-only episode was originally published on August 30, 2020 and moved to this feed for full member access.Even a former member of Trump's Department of Homeland Security thinks he is bat-shit, and surrounded by actual racists. It would be funny if some of the stories that former DHS official Elizabeth Neumann told Rick Wilson and Molly Jong-Fast on this episode on The New Abnormal weren't so terrifying. She admits that she did “hold her nose” and vote for him in 2016 and really believed he would rise to the occasion. But that dream died super quick—by the end of summer 2017 to be exact: “It was clear he didn't have a strong enough character to put aside some of his bad habits,” she said. There was one moment, though, that changed it all. Or, as Molly put it, “made you realize we're not in Kansas anymore.” “He was having some sort of school yard bully fight with a man who is trying to launch a nuclear weapon,” she explained. “It was a huge wake up call for the department.” Neumann also spoke to the influence Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller had on immigration and when she, a pro-lifer, realized the president “wasn't a true Christian.” And then she makes two scary admissions, which says a lot because they are all pretty scary, tbh. The first is that Nuemann can say with certainty that many of those in Trump's orbit are racist. In fact, she had a moment while working in the department in which she thought, “Oh my God, some of these people are racist.” The second, and related to the first, is the role that Trump has had on domestic terrorism and white supremacy in the United States: “The president not speaking out against white supremacy and against QAnon is extremely dangerous. He is creating that fear that creates vulnerability in people to be recruited and radicalized by groups that have an intention of violence.” Plus! Will more former administration officials come out? Neumann shares her thoughts.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As you’ve probably heard, we also run bonus episodes every Sunday that are only for Beast Inside members. As a small token of our gratitude, we’re sharing one of those bonus episodes in full with you here. If you want more bonus episodes like this, with more of the spicy interviews and blunt banter you know and love, consider joining Beast Inside. Doing so supports us, The New Abnormal, and the rest of fearless journalism from The Daily Beast. Head over to newabnormal.thedailybeast.com to become a member now – or after you listen to this amazing interview with Elizabeth Neumann. Even a former member of Trump’s Department of Homeland Security thinks he is bat-shit, and surrounded by actual racists. It would be funny if some of the stories that former DHS official Elizabeth Neumann told Rick Wilson and Molly Jong-Fast on this episode on The New Abnormal weren’t so terrifying. She admits that she did “hold her nose” and vote for him in 2016 and really believed he would rise to the occasion. But that dream died super quick—by the end of summer 2017 to be exact: “It was clear he didn’t have a strong enough character to put aside some of his bad habits,” she said. There was one moment, though, that changed it all. Or, as Molly put it, “made you realize we’re not in Kansas anymore.” “He was having some sort of school yard bully fight with a man who is trying to launch a nuclear weapon,” she explained. “It was a huge wake up call for the department.” Neumann also spoke to the influence Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller had on immigration and when she, a pro-lifer, realized the president “wasn’t a true Christian.” And then she makes two scary admissions, which says a lot because they are all pretty scary, tbh. The first is that Nuemann can say with certainty that many of those in Trump’s orbit are racist. In fact, she had a moment while working in the department in which she thought, “Oh my God, some of these people are racist.” The second, and related to the first, is the role that Trump has had on domestic terrorism and white supremacy in the United States: “The president not speaking out against white supremacy and against QAnon is extremely dangerous. He is creating that fear that creates vulnerability in people to be recruited and radicalized by groups that have an intention of violence.” Plus! Will more former administration officials come out? Neumann shares her thoughts.Want more? Become a Beast Inside member to enjoy a limited-run series of bonus interviews from The New Abnormal. Guests include Cory Booker, Jim Acosta, and more. Head to newabnormal.thedailybeast.com to join now.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

  Introduction Welcome to Distilling Venture Capital.  I am your host, Bill Griesinger Distilling VC is a visionary podcast that provides an insightful and informed view of the key trends affecting the VC and tech startup world.  My mission is to cut through and go beyond the hype that tends to dominate the tech landscape.  And provide you with information you can use   Opening Observations: Hello everyone, and welcome back.  I promised you in the prior Episode that I would devote this Episode to distilling down one of the most famous poster-kids for Unicorns-aren’t-real; WeWork Today, I am going to provide you the insights and analysis that the technology and financial press, investors and others have failed to deliver to you over the last few years regarding this tarnished unicorn. To set the stage though, let’s do a quick timeline review of WeWork leading up to and then after its failed IPO of Sept. of 2019:   WeWork valued itself at a cool $47B by early 2019 and, that in fact would be its valuation leading up to its announced IPO WeWork filed its S-1 and IPO paperwork in mid-Aug. 2019 After more than a few I-Banks and others scrutinized its financial condition and bus. model and “questioned” the proposed go-public valuation the Co. made some, shall we say, “adjustments” to its valuation  After some consideration, WeWork suggested it would now go public at, uh, $10B-$16B Bam!  A greater than 65% vaporization of its valuation in a matter days - amazing Cancelled its IPO in Sept. 2019 when support waned By Oct. 2019, Adam Nuemann asked to step down after discovering a few “corporate governance” problems.  He received a total $1.7B golden parachute to go away. Bloomberg opinion writer, Matt Levine, put it this way in a late Oct. 2019 piece, writing tongue-in-cheek suggested how the news was communicated to employees at the time:  It was explained, “We had to give him a billion dollars to go away because we couldn’t afford to have him stick around,”  So, his value to the Company was negative a billion dollars. Levine continues, in other words, “We can’t pay you for your good work because it was more urgent to pay your boss a billion dollars to stop doing his bad work.”  Sounds about right. By Oct. 2019, life support was needed.  The Co. accepted (as if it had a choice) a Softbank rescue pkg. where SB took control of the Co., valuing it at $8B (about $19/share, which, as it turns out, was still too high) More recently (April 2020), SoftBank pulled the plug on and backed out of a planned tender offer of an addl $3B to bail out, er, I mean plan to shore up, WeWorks shareholders. To a lawsuit; Following the termination of that agreement, WeWork Board voted to sue the only thing that was keeping it alive…SoftBank’s money.  Great strategy Then came the question;  Who should lead the Co. post-A. Nuemann?   After being led by such an irreplaceable visionary as Adam Nuemann (according to the S-1), surely a similarly disruptive, forward thinking genius would be required.  Or, you could hire this guy: in Feb. 2020 WeWork announced it had named Sandeep Mathrani, a senior executive with RE Company Brookfield Properties, as its new CEO. Wait, what?  An experienced RE executive from one of the top companies in the field? A sordid mess, I know…but this is what passes for reality now when you are dealing in the land of unicorns, right?  Things get a little distorted Let’s get back to reality and restore some meaning to this mess: I told you my main objective is to cut through the hype that tends to dominate… With a bit of cursory, basic diligence, I’ll point out and highlight a few of the basic risks of the WeWork bus. model.  Something one would have expected from the analysts, I-Banks, INVESTORS, lenders and, oh yeah, the tech and financial press, to have done – but they didn’t. It’s not really that complicated to determine what WeWork is and understand its key business model characteristics.   The First thing to point out is this; WeWork is not a tech company!  News Flash.  I know this may come as a rude surprise to many...and despite the narrative and musings of a truly voluminous S-1 to the contrary (> 350 pages), the WeWork vision and version of the co-working ofc. space business is not transforming our consciousness and vision on how we all work… What Adam Neumann and WeWork wanted you to believe, however, was that he and his firm were transforming the very way we all work and we’re “building community” fostering some new form of “collaboration,” and so on In other words, if you accept WeWork’s view of the world, it’s basically like saying your bus. model is the equivalent of “boiling the ocean.”  Doable?  How does that sound as an investment opportunity? In the real world, renters of commercial ofc. space desire functionality, convenience and flexibility at a reasonable price – All before this nebulous creating community nonsense.  It’s common sense and bottom line thinking in which any business must engage.  Again, not a new phenomenon or metric of the commercial ofc. space market, correct? The WeWork Business Model in About Two and a Half Minutes: What is the WeWork business model at its core?  How does the company actually derive/earn revenue?  Let’s examine the fundamentals. In short, WeWork creates a marketplace for commercial property that seeks to match the supply of commercial office space (from landlords, comm. Bldg. owners, prop. mgt. companies) with space users (those renting) in one place.   You know, like Regus, w/o the “cool factor” and Kambuca on tap – and, oh yeah, billions from SoftBank So, WeWork signs long term leases on properties and also purchased some properties outright, sometimes just a floor or two in an office building—and transformed it into smaller offices and workstations with common areas, other amenities and offered a basket of shared services.  Avg. initial lease term is 15 years, according to the S-1 Filing. It then rents offices and desks to individuals or groups on relatively short-term agreements, who want the benefits of a fully stocked office with some functional common areas, but without the expense of operating a full office.  Sounds reasonable.   WeWork calls it clients “Members” and sells Memberships Memberships can be On-Demand;  provide access to shared workstations or private spaces as needed, by the minute, by the hour or by the day.  “Space-as-a-Service platform. Enterprise Memberships are signed with organizations with 500 or more employees – As of June 2019, WeWork’s Enterprise Memberships accounted for 40% of all Memberships Capital expenditures relates to creating Workstation Capacity + other improvements   WeWork also has utilized the services of a few major third-party Com. RE management firms like JLL and CBRE to facilitate leasing of the space it owns or leases itself. Risk Assessment:   So, let’s step back for a moment and summarize:  WeWork incurs rent liabilities and payment liabilities for its properties that are fixed pmts. and long term.  Its revenue, on the other hand, is generated from the short-term contracts it signs with clients, many month-to-month. Let’s stop here and identify one of the major risks that becomes very obvious in the WeWork business model, has always existed, and is potentially huge?  The possibility for a significant C.F. timing mismatch between the long term, fixed payment liabilities WeWork carries on its balance sheet vs the short-term agreements with clients that represent its primary source of revenue and cash flow.   (to pay those property liabilities and cover bus. expenses) More specifically, the risk I have identified is renewal risk and/or non-payment risk.  I don’t know the avg. term that clients have signed up for;  i.e. renting monthly, for 6 months or a year (to obtain the flexibility they desire)?   SO, renewal rates are directly dependent upon a firm’s ability to provid great service, Completely independent of the mission of “transforming the way we all work, collaborate, etc.  Presents the classic CF squeeze that can occur if things do not go as planned  The rent or loan payments are due every month, fixed, for many years. (Avg. 15 years)      My diligence questions upon reviewing this business risk would include the following: What is the avg term of your rental agreements? i.e. – how long are clients signing up for space on avg? (allows one to see a schedule of lease renewal dates) What is the historical renewal rate experience?  (After all, WeWork has been operating under this model since 2014 – it’s not new – should be readily available data) Alternatively, What’s the churn or non-renewal rate?  This analysis, with the historical experience, provides one with a semblance of margins generated and whether there is EVER a path to profitability – and ability to service the lease/debt payment obligations.   So, that is the WeWork business model in a nutshell – Providing flexible ofc space with some common area, amenities and services...   How should such a company be valued?  Well, like most any company – by the cash flows that it generates from operations…right?   A basic “smell test,” that should have been a reality check, a wake-up call evident to anyone analyzing WeWork was presented by Professor Ilya Strebulav’s (Stanford valuation model creator and author) from his June 2016 presentation to the SVOD.   Again, please refer to the Show Notes for a link to the video.  I highly recommended you watch it.   Link to Video:   Presentation at SVOD (Sil. Valley Open Doors Conf.), June 19, 2016 by Ilya Strebulav, author of the Study and Professor, Stanford Univ. Grad. School of Business:   https://youtu.be/k4OtGWZ3iYI Link to Stanford University Study:   Squaring Venture Capital Valuations with Reality - Downloadable pdf found here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2955455 (Social Science Research Network – SSRN)   Here is what Professor Strebulav points out in his presentation regarding WeWork: On March 1, (2016) WeWork closed a $430MM round of capital at a post-money valuation of $16B.  That is the valuation that the WSJ and others printed and reported the next day as the “value” of the Company He notes that, At this valuation, WeWork would have represented the 3rd most valuable publicly traded ofc landlord (if it were publicly traded).   Even though it controlled only small fraction of the sq. footage compared to the leading companies in the sector.  Remember, by the time WeWork filed for its IPO, it represented that it was nearly triple that  ($47B) Such a valuation makes no financial or intuitive sense…based on what we know of the business model, as practiced by its “peers” in the sector  (Regus) – And, set against the sq. footage it operated.   This valuation it obviously what investors and some I-banks thought they could get leading up to Sept. 2019 when WeWork was indicating a $47B valuation go-public offering. A reading of WeWork’s S-1 filing, if you could stomach it, is mostly an exercise in fantasy-land thinking.   What are some of those “other” public firms that WeWork’s valuation mirrored or exceeded at the time of its S1? Brookfield Asset Management - CAN (> 152M retail s.f.;  300M s.f. ofc, hotel, apt.; Mtk Cap - $51B; highly profitable) As of June 1, 2019, WeWork’s location pipeline included approximately 40 million “usable” square feet, which it estimates could accommodate approximately 724,000 workstations.  Again, this is “Pipeline” of “Useable” s.f. not actual rented and under management square footage.   How VCs Make Final Investment Decisions: Ask any associate or partner at a VC firm to divulge one of the key criteria they evaluate before making a decision to invest in a tech company – The answer you will receive most often, if not unanimously, is;  Quality of the Management Team.  Can this team move this co. forward to success? I know this b/c I’ve been asking VCs this question as part of my investor diligence for more than 15 yrs – it’s required understanding before our venture debt group would approve making a loan to the companies we considered…VCs bet on management teams in the end… It seems this key tenet of the VC decision process was thrown to the wind in the case of WeWork…and many other unicorns.   Perhaps it was the lure of all the SoftBank dollars pouring in through a firehose?  Either way, the process was tainted and distorted.    Thus, we cannot lose sight of the unmistakable role of SoftBank in fueling this craziness – and the related poor VC decision making – in light of the bankrolling on steroids in which SB engaged – driving up the “on-paper-only” valuations of the companies in its portfolio.  While examining SoftBank’s Vision Fund activities is worthy of an episode of its own… one can certainly read all the commentary and articles on your own… Failure of the Tech Media: Yet, in May of 2019 only a few months before WeWork pulled its IPO, here was PitchBook, with another fawning piece expressing total amazement at the killer valuation growth of some of the most bad-ass unicorns, including WeWork.  They were so giddy they could hardly contain themselves.. In another Weekend Pitch edition, “When your valuation is growing by nearly $1 billion a month, you must be doing something right.”  [They were referring to DoorDash] “It calls to mind a stretch experienced a few years ago by WeWork.  Today, WeWork is reportedly worth $47 billion, making it the most valuable VC-backed company in the US.”   Amazing, isn’t it?  Again, no supporting analysis, no bus. model assessment, no risk assessment – just sheer amazement at valuation growth based upon a faulty measure of Value – the post-money valuation!   And from my last Episode, this is worth repeating - PitchBook Weekend Pitch from Nov. 3, 2019: “For a long while in and around Silicon Valley, unprofitability was what every startup hoped to achieve.  And if losing hundreds of millions of VC dollars was cool, then Adam Neumann was Miles Davis.” Really?  Are you kidding me?  This is post-IPO cancellation, post Andy Neumann is toast and post-SoftBank rescue package!   This is your expert analysis that PitchBook is charging for? PitchBook continues, “But these days, in the wake of WeWork’s sudden fall from grace, investors are feeling differently.  All those years of red ink are finally adding up.”   Again, the only redeeming thing I could take from such a ridiculous statement is that the writer even knows who Miles Davis is.  But then I realize, the whole thing is an insult to Miles Davis and our intelligence.  Miles Davis was a musical/jazz genius, a master artist.  Adam Neumann was a fraud.  And the VCs in the WeWork deal should have known this through their diligence.   Hey, I’ve got another survey question or two for the VC community that I would ask;     1) is losing 100’s of millions of VC dollars a cool thing?   2) Do you agree that every startup hopes to achieve this “unprofitability” status? That’s what PitchBook suggests…as recently at Q4 2019   e.g.  - CB Insights CEO, Anand Sanwal, opined in an August 2019 piece that it (unicorn status) is often used as a scheme to attract top talent in a very tight hiring market for key tech talent… Of course, Sanwal also said this in a June 25, 2019 presentation he gave to partners, investors, supporters:  “Blockchain is a buzzword looking for a problem…”   Another example of the disconnect… My Takeaways/Conclusions: What can we deduce and learn from all of this?   This is a bubble in private co. tech stocks – it’s an artificial inflation of valuations due primarily to a non-standard, faulty method of applying valuations – the Post Money valuation -  Bubbles can only be created and progress toward a bursting point if they are embellished and fueled by those perpetuating the non-market, non-fundamentals approach to value.  There is no more disconnected phenomenon today in private tech than the post-money valuation. Enter SoftBank Vision Fund:  They provided the fuel necessary Disappointments to share value after tech unicorns go public will be the norm, not the exception.   Luckily for investors in public companies – we don’t have to suffer through trail of tears on WeWork – they didn’t make it that far and with good reason…as outlined in this Episdoe. Not so lucky, however, for WeWork employees with worthless stock options…   My Recommendation/proposal:  All private tech company valuations should be run through the Stanford Univ. Valuation Model prior to any kind of exit – I believe it should be made an integral part of the S-1 filing process.  Or any time the value of a private tech company needs to be certified for audit or other purposes.  These companies owe it to their employees who are provided, in many cases, with near worthless Common stock or options for common.   Thank you for joining me for this edition of DVC.  I hope you found the topic interesting and useful.  I am currently working on the DVC website.  In the meantime, Please send questions and your comments regarding today’s episode to:      bill@ccs.capital   Again, check the links in the Show Notes for the Stanford Valuation Model Study and the video of Prof. Strebulav’s 2016 presentation to SVOD… Stanford University Study - Summary of the Findings – From Study Abstract: Developed a valuation model for venture capital-backed companies and applied it to 135 US unicorns - private tech companies with reported valuations above $1 billion. Valued unicorns using financial terms from legal filings, finding that reported unicorn post--money valuations average 48% above fair value, with 14 being more than 100% above.  Every Company reviewed and valued, (100% of the Sample) was overvalued to some degree – that means not one company came in at the post-money valuation utilized by the VC industry Values were calculated for each share class, which yields lower valuations because most unicorns gave recent investors major protections such as initial public offering (IPO) return guarantees (15%), vetoes over down-IPOs (24%), or seniority to all other investors (30%).  According to the authors, “Overvaluation arises b/c the reported valuations assume all of a company’s shares have the same price as the most recently issued shares.”  Even though each new round of funding effectively sucks the value out of prior rounds through seniority and superior rights, among other preferences. 

In the first ever Tinpod podcast, Lisa Biggs talks to us about 18 years in the voiceover game, the power of Source Connect, finding her true voice and taking the alias of a rap legend.

E. Jack Neumann and John Michael Hayes (right) were two of radio's finest writers of detective and suspense. This week a brief return to an episode from The Adventures of Sam Spade written by these two writers. Listen for the well defined characters the create as well as the tension and comedy. An example of some of radio's finest writing. Nuemann went on to write for television and Hayes wrote several of the classic Alfred Hitchcock films. Please Take our Listener Survey

E. Jack Neumann and John Michael Hayes (right) were two of radio's finest writers of detective and suspense. This week a brief return to an episode from The Adventures of Sam Spade written by these two writers. Listen for the well defined characters the create as well as the tension and comedy. An example of some of radio's finest writing. Nuemann went on to write for television and Hayes wrote several of the classic Alfred Hitchcock films. Please Take our Listener Survey