Recently I conducted a Financial Survey to find if there is a need for a Financial Information Research Portal. Following is the result of the research. I was really surprised by the results. I am sure you will benefit from the insights provided by the dataset.

Financial Information Portal Research Survey Report
	Count	Completed / Started	Completed / Viewed
Completed	33	84.62%	68.75%
Started	39
Viewed	48

Please select the country where you live
India	2	8.33%
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	1	4.17%
United States of America	21	87.50%
Total	24
Mean	167.58
Standard Dev.	28.21
Variance	795.82

Your Age group
20 - 24	0	0.00%
25 - 34	16	45.71%
35 - 49	18	51.43%
50+	1	2.86%
Total	35
Mean	2.57
Standard Dev.	0.56
Variance	0.31

Investment Type
Select all the investment types, that you have invested in the past 1 year
Stocks	20	21.05%
Bonds	8	8.42%
Mutual Funds	18	18.95%
Options	6	6.32%
Commodities	2	2.11%
Forex	1	1.05%
IRA	8	8.42%
401K	23	24.21%
Other	9	9.47%
Total	95
Mean	4.75
Standard Dev.	3.00
Variance	9.02
Other Option [Other]
real estate
403B
None
direct INvestement
529B
FD
CD

How do you make your investments?
Through a broker	9	23.68%
Online brokerage firm	14	36.84%
Other	15	39.47%
Total	38
Mean	2.16
Standard Dev.	0.79
Variance	0.62
Other Option [Other]
	work
	n/a
	Freind refferals
	uni
	financial planner
	e-banking
	Self
	my own experience

Do you have an online brokerage account?
Yes	20	57.14%
No	15	42.86%
Total	35
Mean	1.43
Standard Dev.	0.50
Variance	0.25

How would you categorize your investment skills?
Beginner	10	28.57%
Intermediate	20	57.14%
Expert	3	8.57%
Master	2	5.71%
Total	35
Mean	1.91
Standard Dev.	0.78
Variance	0.61

How frequently do you invest?
Day trader	1	3.13%
1 - 5 times a week	1	3.13%
1 - 10 times a month	18	56.25%
I just use the rebalancing features of my 401k provider	12	37.50%
Total	32
Mean	3.28
Standard Dev.	0.68
Variance	0.47

How much time do you spend on research before you make your investment decisions?
I don't research, I believe in my insight and experience	5	16.67%
I leave it to my broker	3	10.00%
1 - 2 Hours	4	13.33%
2 - 5 Hours	8	26.67%
More than 5 Hours	10	33.33%
Total	30
Mean	3.50
Standard Dev.	1.48
Variance	2.19

Please select the different research tools that you use or have used
Public financial websites - i.e. Yahoo finance, Google finance, MSN Money etc.,	22	20.37%
Subscribed financial websites - WSJ, Financial Times, The Street etc.,	9	8.33%
Commercial financial products - Bloomberg Terminal, Factset, etc.,	7	6.48%
Finance TV - CNBC, Bloomberg, FOX Business Network	8	7.41%
Analyst reports	10	9.26%
Paid Newsletters	0	0.00%
Company website	9	8.33%
Blogs	6	5.56%
Industry reports	15	13.89%
SEC Filings	6	5.56%
S&P, Morning Star reports	10	9.26%
Other	6	5.56%
Total	108
Mean	5.84
Standard Dev.	3.78
Variance	14.26
Other Option [Other]
	Motely
	My broker
	None
	own research
	Rediff.com columns

What do you feel about the information overload when you are researching?
I am experienced to identify the right information	8	22.22%
I have developed a customized research techniques	5	13.89%
I get bogged down with all the information overload	8	22.22%
I would like a research tool which can filter contents based on my research criteria	13	36.11%
Other	2	5.56%
Total	36
Mean	2.89
Standard Dev.	1.28
Variance	1.64
Other Option [Other]
	Financial advisor walks me through
	N/A

Do you read company quarterly/annual report
Yes	20	60.61%
No	13	39.39%
Total	33
Mean	1.39
Standard Dev.	0.50
Variance	0.25

How much time do you spend on watching financial television channels like CNBC, Bloomberg or FOX Business Network
1 hour a day	11	33.33%
2 hours a day	2	6.06%
3 hours a day	1	3.03%
4+ hours a day	0	0.00%
I don't watch business channels	19	57.58%
Total	33
Mean	3.42
Standard Dev.	1.90
Variance	3.63

How much time do you spend on financial websites like yahoo finance, WSJ, Google finance, The Street, etc.,
1 hour a day	15	48.39%
2 hours a day	3	9.68%
3 hours a day	1	3.23%
4+ hours a day	2	6.45%
I don't visit business websites	10	32.26%
Total	31
Mean	2.65
Standard Dev.	1.84
Variance	3.37

Do you read financial blogs, if so how many blogs do you follow regularly
1	6	30.00%
3	3	15.00%
5	1	5.00%
Other	10	50.00%
Total	20
Mean	2.75
Standard Dev.	1.37
Variance	1.88
Other Option [Other]
	none
	Don't read
	none
	NO
	0
	0
	0

Select the key characteristics you like in a research tool. Please rate the significance of each factor that you select.
Portfolio management
Least Desired	2	8.70%
Desired	7	30.43%
Most Desired	14	60.87%
Total	23
Mean	2.52
Standard Dev.	0.67
Variance	0.44
Industry assessment
Least Desired	0	0.00%
Desired	13	52.00%
Most Desired	12	48.00%
Total	25
Mean	2.48
Standard Dev.	0.51
Variance	0.26
Competitive assessment
Least Desired	0	0.00%
Desired	12	50.00%
Most Desired	12	50.00%
Total	24
Mean	2.50
Standard Dev.	0.51
Variance	0.26
Macro-economic impacts
Least Desired	8	33.33%
Desired	8	33.33%
Most Desired	8	33.33%
Total	24
Mean	2.00
Standard Dev.	0.83
Variance	0.70
Micro-economic impacts
Least Desired	6	26.09%
Desired	9	39.13%
Most Desired	8	34.78%
Total	23
Mean	2.09
Standard Dev.	0.79
Variance	0.63
Resource/capabilities view
Least Desired	3	13.04%
Desired	15	65.22%
Most Desired	5	21.74%
Total	23
Mean	2.09
Standard Dev.	0.60
Variance	0.36
Financial forecasting
Least Desired	0	0.00%
Desired	12	48.00%
Most Desired	13	52.00%
Total	25
Mean	2.52
Standard Dev.	0.51
Variance	0.26
Historical financial data analysis
Least Desired	0	0.00%
Desired	18	69.23%
Most Desired	8	30.77%
Total	26
Mean	2.31
Standard Dev.	0.47
Variance	0.22
Scenario analysis
Least Desired	6	27.27%
Desired	9	40.91%
Most Desired	7	31.82%
Total	22
Mean	2.05
Standard Dev.	0.79
Variance	0.62
Ranking
Least Desired	2	8.70%
Desired	10	43.48%
Most Desired	11	47.83%
Total	23
Mean	2.39
Standard Dev.	0.66
Variance	0.43
Research summary
Least Desired	2	8.33%
Desired	7	29.17%
Most Desired	15	62.50%
Total	24
Mean	2.54
Standard Dev.	0.66
Variance	0.43
Analyst reports
Least Desired	2	7.69%
Desired	13	50.00%
Most Desired	11	42.31%
Total	26
Mean	2.35
Standard Dev.	0.63
Variance	0.40
Newsletter summary
Least Desired	10	45.45%
Desired	5	22.73%
Most Desired	7	31.82%
Total	22
Mean	1.86
Standard Dev.	0.89
Variance	0.79

What is your willingness to spend money on a financial research tool
Most Willing	10	30.30%
Least Willing	23	69.70%
Total	33
Mean	1.70
Standard Dev.	0.47
Variance	0.22

How much would you spend on a customizable financial research tool
$10 - $20 a Month	7	21.21%
$20 - $40 a Month	3	9.09%
Annual subscription of $200	5	15.15%
I will not spend money	18	54.55%
Total	33
Mean	3.03
Standard Dev.	1.24
Variance	1.53

Following is an article published on September 30, 1999 by Steven A Holmes in New York Times. It is really remarkable to see, how accurately Steve predicted the future. Unfortunately we are living through the issues presently.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
* Home
* Privacy Policy
* Search
* Corrections
* XML
* Help
* Contact Us
* Work for Us
* Back to Top
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Review - Getting Past No (William Ury)

Starting to Getting Past No

I started reading this book “Getting Past No” as part of my Conflict & Negotiation course assignment. William Ury is the author of this book who has previously co-authored the book on “Getting to Yes” with Roger Fisher. Before I started reading this book, I wanted to get an overview of this book; I turned to the back-cover followed by the author’s note. The back-cover of this book asks questions on how to get past no and presents strategies on getting to yes.  Author’s note makes a start by explaining the seeds behind the book concept. Author has tried to answer two important questions in this book, how can one turn confrontation in to cooperation? And how can one transform conflicts to be fought in to problems to be solved?

 

Interestingly author goes on to explain how cooperation is important in family, business and global environment. He stresses on the fact that court cases and war is not the answer to conflict resolution. Courts and war are highly expensive solutions and doesn’t necessarily provide a solution to acute conflicts. This book has been classified in to 3 sections. First section “Getting ready” focuses on how to be prepared before going to negotiate. Second section “Using the Breakthrough Strategy” explains 5 key strategies that can be employed to achieve a mutually acceptable/negotiated solution to a conflict.
Final chapter “Turning Adversaries into Partners” looks at how to turn adversaries in to partners.

 

Breaking Through Barriers to Cooperation

William starts with an Italian diplomat’s quote “Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way”. How true it is, in our day to day life we constantly negotiate to reach a mutually agreed solution. There are times when we have an upper hand and other time we don’t. Author explains negotiations as a process of back and forth communication aimed at reaching agreement with others when some of your interests are shared and some are opposed. William identifies the following 5 behaviors as the barriers to cooperation.

• Your Reaction
• Their Emotion
• Their Position
• Their Dissatisfaction
• Their Power

 

Joint Problem Solving

This is a process in which you move away from the position and focus more on the interests. This way negotiation process moves from opposite to side by side. When the person shifts to the other side they see the interests of each side. Thus if a person negotiates with a manager for a promotion focuses more on the interests (Tuition fee, 401k, health care plan, etc,) instead of the position he might want. Joint problem solving helps the negotiations process by reducing the time and energy spent on posturing. Also it improves the work relationship by mutually benefiting each party.

 

 

Breakthrough Negotiation

William Ury provides the following five step strategy to counter the barriers to cooperation.

 

Barriers to Cooperation	Breakthrough Negotiation
Your Reaction	Go to the balcony
Their Emotion	Step to their Side
Their Position	Reframe
Their Dissatisfaction	Build them a golden bridge
Their Power	Use power to educate

                       

William Ury gives an analogy of sailing to explain the principles of breakthrough negotiation. I have some experience in sailing a J24 in which primary strategy to reach the goal was to take a zigzag position. This is important in sailing as traveling straight to destination would be doomed failure. Following the flow of the wind and ensuring that strong winds, tides, reefs, shoals, storms and squalls are handled in the process. Similarly breakthrough negotiation has different stages and each stage needs to be handled with a unique approach. Ury explains the importance of breakthrough negotiator as “Your single greatest opportunity is to change the game. Instead of playing their way let them have your way”. Breakthrough negotiators treat their opponents as the negotiating partners who are presenting an opportunity to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement.

 

Preparation – Key to Success

This books talks in detail on why preparation is mandatory for an effective negotiation. It charts out a plan for a negotiator to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. Identify interests for both the parties, what are options involved for those interests. Create a set of standards to resolve the differences fairly, alternatives to negotiation and proposals for agreement.

 

Go to the balcony

Human beings are reaction machines. When a human being is confronted most natural tendency is to react without thinking. We react by striking back, giving in or breaking off. Dangers of reacting without thinking to a situation are we start to loose sight of our interests. By reacting we become the part of the problem. Ury says we get in to a vicious cycle of action and reaction, but the power to break this cycle is with us. Mind can be controlled; it doesn’t have to follow the Newton’s law of reacting to every action. During the negotiation process at any time if one experiences difficulty they should step back, collect their wits and see the situation objectively. This process of viewing an issue from outside is depicted as going to the balcony. It metaphorically means the mental attitude of detachment.

 

Step to their Side

Going to the balcony has helped a negotiator to regain a mental balance; next step is to help the other side regain theirs. Important challenge here is how one can create a favorable climate in which one can negotiate. Outcome of this exercise is to ensure that one is treated as a human being. Control the emotional aspects and make sure that the other side understands your view point even though they may not like it.

Key secret to disarm is surprise, when they are expecting to attack step to their side, acknowledge their issues and feelings, hear them out, paraphrase and ask for corrections. Acknowledge the person, by doing so you are creating what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance” and inconsistency between perception and reality.

 

Reframe

Author names this chapter as “To Change the Game Change the Frame”. To change the negotiation game, try changing the frame. Do the opposite of what you may feel tempted to do. Treat your opponent as a partner. Try reframing the opponents view; it is a golden opportunity to understand the problems of the opponent.

 

Build them a Golden Bridge

This is the phase when a negotiator is ready to sign the agreement. A negotiator has ensured that he/she suspended the reactions, defused other side’s emotions and reframed their position. Still there could be issues; final barrier could be other side’s dissatisfaction. Building a golden bridge doesn’t necessarily mean creating a great proposal but it also involves the other side’s involvement and participation in the agreement. Second it means that we need to move from the obvious interests i.e. money and move towards the intangible needs such as recognition, relationship, etc, also it means that the opposite side feels they have achieved a victory.

 

Use Power to Educate

Exercising power is an integral part of problem-solving negotiation. Use the power to bring the other side to the table. Instead of seeking victory, aim for mutual satisfaction. Use power to bring them to their senses and not to their knees.

 

Conclusion: Turning Adversaries in to Partners

Authors conclude by saying “Breakthrough negotiation is hard work. Successful negotiators are patient and persistent. Progress comes gradually. Small breakthroughs can add up to a major breakthrough. In the end even negotiations that once seemed impossible can often yield a mutually satisfactory agreement.

 

Book Review - Getting To Yes

Introduction

This paper is a reflection of the book “Getting To YES” written by authors Roger Fisher and William Ury. This book was written based on a question “What is the best way for people to deal with their differences”. How two or more entities that are involved in a conflict could amicably reach a mutually satisfying agreement without feeling that one of them gave in.

 

Book Framework

Book starts with an introduction to Negotiation, need for negotiation. It looks at the fundamental problems in classical negotiation. In the first section it explains why one should not bargain over position. In the next chapter it goes on to define methods to separate people from the problem. Explains why one should focus on interests and not on positions. Negotiator should take time to invent options for mutual gain and should insist on using objective criteria. All the above mentioned methods would help a negotiator reach a mutually satisfying agreement. In the final section authors look at three important questions that often come to our mind. What If the other party doesn’t play by the rule or more powerful or it uses dirty tricks.

 

Don’t Bargain over Position

This chapter looks at the ill effects of a positional bargain. In this situation the parties involved in a conflict takes a position and starts arguing for their position. There is a considerable amount of haggling before an agreement can be reached, wasting considerable time and energy. A positional bargain fails to meet the basic criteria of producing a wise agreement, efficiently and amicably. Reasons attributed to failure of this method are overlooking the concerns related to the negotiator and primarily focusing on the position. Some of the examples cited are failed negotiation between president JFK and Soviet Union for a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing.

 

In this strategy both the parties tries to win and they do not look at the interests of both. This strategy could lead to strained relationship, increased time to complete an agreement and makes the process highly impossible when more than two parties are involved. Thus authors recommend against the use of positional bargaining. They also introduce the difference between soft and hard bargaining. Playing the soft game gives undue advantage to someone who is playing the hard game.

 

Alternative to Positional Bargaining Strategy

Which game should we play – Soft or Hard? Answer to the question is neither. Try changing the game. Authors are introducing an alternative to the positional bargaining strategy which is a method of negotiation explicit designed to produce wise outcomes efficiently and amicably. This is called “principled negotiation” or “negotiation on the merits”. It defines the straight forward negotiation which can be used under any circumstances. Following points deals with the basic elements of negotiation, and suggests what you should do about it.

ü     People:            Separate the people from the problem

ü     Interest: Focus on interests and not positions

ü     Options: Generate a variety of options before deciding what to do

ü     Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard

 

Separate the people from the Problem

In this chapter authors explain why separating the people from the problem is rather important. Human beings are an emotional package. They react to circumstances differently. This human aspect can be either helpful or disaster for the negotiating outcome. It is important to separate the relationship aspect from the substance. It is important to understand what the other side thinks, their perception and most importantly putting yourself in their shoes. Try to break the perceptions by acting inconsistently with the perceptions. For e.g. In 1977 Egypt’s president’s visit to Jerusalem was a great example of such act. Emotions plays a critical role in the negotiation process, it is critical to understand the emotions of both the side and react accordingly. Ensure that communication process is done carefully. Without proper communication the entire process of negotiation could be in question.

 

Focus on Interests, Not on Positions

Fundamental problem in negotiation does not lie in conflicting position, instead it is in the negotiators needs, desires, concerns and fears. Understanding the parties interest would help to come up with an amicable solution. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions.

Behind each opposition conflict there lays sharable, compatible and conflicting interests. Authors explain this theory using a real estate rental analogy.  Understanding the interests would open up the options available for negotiating a conflict. Clearly communicating the interests would help the opposite party look at things as you see. Acknowledge the interests of others as problems; try to look forward and do not bring past issues when evaluating a future or present deal, be concrete but flexible. Finally authors ask one to be soft on the people but hard on the problem.

 

Invent Options for Mutual Gains

Many negotiations involve four major obstacles that prevent identifying the available options. They are premature judgment, trying to search for a single answer, assumption of a fixed pie and finally thinking that “solving their problem is their problem”. To invent creative options authors prescribe the following strategies.  Separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them; To broaden the options at the table rather than looking at a single answer; To search for mutual gains and finally to invent ways of making their decisions easy.

 

Insist on Using Objective Criteria

This chapter focuses on how to create a solution based on principles and doesn’t base on people’s mettle. Principled negotiation produces wise agreements amicably and efficiently. Chapter goes in detailing the process of developing objective criteria, and how one can use them in negotiating.  Following standards should be used as and when it is available; Market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, government regulations, moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, reciprocity and costs.

In addition authors provide three ways to use the objective criteria and procedures. Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria, Reason and be open to reason on which standard is appropriate, and never yield to pressure but only to principle.

 

What if They Are More Powerful?

In this chapter authors introduce a concept named BATNA – (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement).  It is important to understand the concept of bargaining power. More the bargaining power more leverage does one side have. It doesn’t matter you talk about interests, options and standards if the other side has a stronger bargaining power. BATNA is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. Having a good BATNA would help negotiating on merits instead of position. Having a good BATNA provides an easy means to walk away and highly improves the present negotiating situation.

 

What if They Won’t Play?

If the opposing side doesn’t want to talk about standards, interests or even merits and doesn’t want to play the game then following the three basic approaches would help the opponents focus on the merits. First step focuses on what should do and second step focuses on what others may do, this counters the basic moves of positional bargaining and directs their attention towards the merits, this strategy is called negotiation jujitsu. Final step involves what the third party can do, if first two options doesn’t work try involving a third party who is trained to focus on interests, standards and criteria.

 

What if They Use Dirty Tricks?

Principle negotiation is great, but what happens when the opposite party tries to derail you or worse case he tries to increase the demand at the verge of an agreement. This chapter looks means by which we can counter the opponent by applying four principles of following the interests, standards, options and criteria. It is important to be able to understand the psychological warfare and knowing the tricks one might have up their sleeve.

 

Conclusion

Authors conclude by saying negotiation is not about winning but it is about how you capture the ultimate price which is winning on merits. Principled negotiation will produce over the long run substantive outcomes as good as or better than you are likely to obtain using any other negotiation strategy.