Hello and welcome to the session. This is Professor Farhad in which we would look at asset classes, specifically equity securities. This topic is covered on the CPABEC section, the CFA exam in an undergraduate or graduate essentials or principles of investments. As always, I would like to remind you to connect with me on LinkedIn if you haven't done so. YouTube is where you would need to subscribe. I have 1,700 plus accounting, auditing, tax, finance, as well as Excel tutorial. If you like my lectures, please like them, share them, put them in playlists, subscribe to my YouTube, connect with me on Instagram. On my website, farhadlectures.com, you will find additional resources, whether you are studying for your accounting or finance courses, or you are studying for your CPA or CFA. Check out my catalog of supplemental resources. Asset classes from a grant perspective can be broken down into three categories, fixed income, equity securities, as well as derivatives. Under fixed income, we have the money market, which are short term and the capital market. And both of these are already covered. So the fixed income is done. In this session, I will work on the equity section. Under the equity section, I'm going to keep it simple. I'm going to break it down into common and preferred stock. This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to break it down into two sections and eventually we'll talk briefly about derivatives. Now, here's what I want to tell you. Now, we spoke about fixed income. We're going to talk about fixed income much more in details when we evaluate fixed income. We're going to talk about equity today. Well, this is going to be like a short introduction. Eventually, we're going to talk about how to value stocks. When we talk about derivatives, it's going to give you a basic introduction about derivatives for now, then we'll talk about these topics later. So if you feel like I am not really going in depth, it's because later on we're going to go in depth. This is basically the beginning of the course. So just bear that in mind. But it's very important that you understand the basics before you move on into intermediate and advanced topics. So let's start with common stocks. Common stocks are basically form of ownership shares. So when you buy stocks in a company, you buy common stocks, they represent equity securities or simply equities. And what is equity? It represents ownership shares in a corporation. When you buy a stock in a certain company, in Apple computers or in Microsoft, what you become, you become an owner of the company. So what does that mean? What does each stock represent? So let's assume you bought one stock or 100 or 1000. What does that represent?  Well, each share of stocks entitles you to certain rights as an owner. Basically, you become an owner in the company and as an owner, what can and cannot do? Well, each share of stock will allow you to have one vote for any matter of corporate governance. So every once in a while, the corporation will submit some major decision for voting. And guess what? One vote, one share equal to one vote. So the more votes you have, you vote with your money. It's not democracy. The more money you are invested in, the more shares you have, the more votes you have. Also, you can vote the board of director, which is that's very important. Why that's very important? Because the board of directors are elected on an annual meeting and they technically, they represent you. The owners of the company are the shareholders. But as a shareholders, how do you express your position as an owner? You vote this group, board of directors. So the board of directors basically is in charge. And that group select managers, which is the CEO, the CFO, the VPs who run the corporation on a day-to-day basis. Then the managers would select the employees and all these people would select, I'm sorry, all these people would run the company on your behalf as a shareholder. Okay, so basically you select the board of directors. The board of directors assigns management. Management run the company and managers have the authority to make most business decision without the board's approval. So the board doesn't get involved in a day-to-day operation. They might meet on a quarterly or sometime monthly depending on the company. But usually they meet on a quarterly basis to review the performance of the company. But the day-to-day operation is run by actual managers, managers that run the company. So the board of directors are just on the top. They see the big pictures. Okay, keep in mind if you have a vote, if you have the right to vote, you don't have to vote. You can assign your right. You can vote by proxy. And here's what happens sometimes. Sometime management, they will come to you. Let's assume I own 500 shares of Apple computers. I don't. I wish I do, but I don't. If I have 500 shares of Apple computers, I might receive a request from someone at Apple from management saying, would you give us your right to vote on your behalf? Simply put, I give up my 500 right to vote to them. Or sometime large investor usually solicit proxies like Carl Icahn, this guy in this picture. If you know who he is, that's what he does. He's an active investor. He goes around, he buys companies and what he does, he solicits to. So he might buy 5% of a certain company, then he would try to solicit the additional 10% of votes. So he can convince people, look, give me your vote. I will vote on your behalf and I will vote your best interest. So if you give them that, if you fill out the form, you check a box and yes, you can have my vote, then you can give your vote up to someone else. So just know it's called the proxy voting. Also, if you have shares of stocks, you are entitled to share in the financial benefit of ownership. What does that mean? It means if the company makes a profit, they decided to distribute the shares. I'm sorry, they decided to distribute the profit. You get proportional share in that profit. The right to any dividend, that's exactly what I'm trying to say, that the corporation may choose to distribute. So you share in that financial benefit of ownership. But also remember, you share in the financial benefit, but you also share in the financial risk. So if the company bellies up, you also carry the risk. But here, we're trying to put a positive spin. But remember, as an owner, you bear the ultimate risk because you're the owner of the company. You're the shareholder. That's your company. And also, you have the right to sell your stock. That's an obvious. That's not really obvious unless we are talking about public companies. Private companies, it might be a little bit harder to sell your stock. But you could always have the right as an owner to sell your stock as long as someone else on the other end is willing to buy it. Now, for publicly traded company, that's not an issue whatsoever. More characteristic about common stock. And remember, when the word stock is thrown out, that's what we mean by stock. When we say characteristic of stock, what we mean is common stock. Because shortly, we're going to see we have common stock and preferred stock. But here, we're talking about common stock because that's the most common. So when you think of stock, you think of common stock. The two most important characteristics of common stock is they have claimed to the residual value and they have limited liability. And you need to understand what does it mean claim to residual value? Claim to residual value means you're the last person in line if the company bellies up. So if the company go out of business, you're the last person who have claim on the asset, also on the income of the corporation. Simply put, the corporation will operate. They'll have to pay older expenses before you get anything from the income. In case the company liquidate in a liquidation scenario, the firm's asset, the shareholder have claim of what's left after paying off all other claimants. Who are they? You have to pay your taxes.   So the common stock people usually are last. And if the company usually fell for bankruptcy, the common shareholders generally speak and they don't get anything. Because by the time you pay all of these, and there's an order, there's a packing order who gets paid first. And you'd learn about this in your business law. So you usually get anything. And a going concern situation, basically going concern means as long as the company is running versus liquidation. Liquidation means going out of business. Shareholders have claim to the part operating income left after you pay interest, taxes and operating the business. So you need to operate the business. You need to pay your interest onto that. You need to pay your taxes and anything left. That's what net income is. And you can, you have part of that net income. You have claim on that. Okay. Management either can pay its residual claim as cash. So they can pay you this whatever's left and income in cash to shareholders.  They keep the money at the company. Why? Because they have other plans. They have better plans on your behalf. They keep, they reinvest. Reinvest, it means they keep it. Pay it out. It means they pay it out as dividend. So those are basically what means by residual claim. What's left in case of liquidation? You get anything. What's left in case of profit? You get anything. Okay. What's left? That's why it's residual. What's left is yours. Also, what's important about investing in common stock? It means it has limited liability. It means the most shareholder can lose is what they invested. So that's why people, they find easier time investing in stocks rather, rather than starting their own business. I mean, you could also start your own business and have limited liability, but also investing in stocks. You don't have what's called an agency problem and not agency problem. You don't, you're not an agent of the company. Forget about it. Forget I said agency problem. We'll talk about agency problem later on, but you are not an agent of the company. So you are an owner in the company, but you don't have to work for the company. Okay. For example, if you invest in your own company, if it's your own company, you can have protection. You could incorporate your company, but you have to work. You have a limited liability. If you own stocks and Apple computers, you don't have to work for Apple. You could just kind of get the profit without working. So kind of in a sense you are passive, but you have limited liability. So shareholders are not like owners. Okay, because you don't have to do any work whose creditors can lay claim to the personal asset of the owner, such as homes, cars and furniture. So simply put, you don't have to work for the company and the creditors, they cannot come after you. So if Apple computers went belly up and the creditors goes after Apple computers, they cannot go after your personal asset. When you own your own business, they might. It's not true if you incorporate properly. So you do have the limited liability. If you choose to, even if you act as a sole proprietary, if you have your own business, you just have to incorporate as a C corporation. In the event of a bankruptcy, corporate stockholders at worst have worthless stocks. So that's the maximum you would lose. So you have your liability is limited. You are not personally liable for the firm's obligation. Also if the firm is sued, the maximum you would lose is your stocks. The company got a business, you lost your stocks. That's the end of it. Now, if you buy stocks in a company, you have to know how to read this information. And this is an example of Microsoft Corporation at 2.43 p.m. on June 15th. At this moment, it was trading at $190.03 pennies. The previous close, it means this is from Yahoo Finance. It means the prior day, it closed at 187.74. It opened today at 9.30 at 184.58. Again, here we have talked about the bid and the ask. Remember, this is from a dealer's perspective. Bid means they will buy it from you. They will buy it from you. If you have Apple, I'm sorry, if you have Microsoft, they will buy it from you. Ask is they will sell it to you. Notice they will buy it from you at $190.31 pennies. If they want to buy it, they will buy it for that much. If they want to sell it to you, they sell it for $190.33 pennies. Notice there's two pennies difference. That's the bid ask price. Now, if you're asking what's that, multiply by $1,100, multiply by $800, this is the size of the order. Don't worry, we'll talk about this later on. But this is basically the size. It means the last time they bought it, they bought it at $190.31, and they bought a size. The size was $1,100 shares. As of this moment, the stock range from $184.01 to $190.82. This is the day's range. The 52-week range is from $130 as low as the past 52 weeks to the maximum is $198. Notice Microsoft is trading at its highest, you know, at the high end. The volume today is 21.2 million shares. Usually the average volume is 46, so it's not trading a lot today. Market capitalization is what is the size of Microsoft? What's the size of Microsoft? How do you find the size of Microsoft? You'll find how many shares are outstanding, and you multiply the shares by the price. Today, Microsoft is worth $1.44 trillion. This is huge. I mean, when Microsoft passed the trillion, it was a big deal. We only have few companies that are trillion-dollar. Microsoft, Apple, Think Google, I can't think of them, but there's like four or five companies that are a trillion-dollar company. Microsoft is one of them. At the beta, we'll talk about the beta later on. It's 0.93. PE ratio, price earnings ratio. Again, we'll talk about this, 31.65. Earnings per share. It means if you take net income, simply put, and you divide net income for Microsoft divided by the number of shareholders, each shareholder will get $6 per share. Now, the one this number to be as high as possible, again, we'll talk about this later on. Earnings date, July 16th, 2020 to July 20th. So they're going to report their earnings, next earnings, approximately a month from now. Forward dividend and yield. That means they pay per year based on forward-looking. They pay $2 per share. That's pretty good. And not really. It doesn't matter what you do. You want the yield. The yield is 1.09. How do you find the yield? If you buy Microsoft today, you'll get $2.04. And you pay $190.03. Okay? Or basically, if you want to buy it, they will sell it to you at $33, actually, if you want to buy it at this moment. So $2, you'll get $2.04. It should be approximately given you 1.09. So you will earn only from the dividend based on the forward-looking is 1.09.  Now, if you wait for tomorrow and the price of Microsoft goes to 200, your yield goes down because you're getting $2 for investing 200 versus you're getting $2.04 for investing 180. So as the price of the stock goes down, its dividend yield goes up. Ex-dividend date. We'll talk about this later. It means by May 20th, if you buy it, you're no longer going to get the last dividend. The one-year target estimate, 1.99. This is based on how yeah, who does it? But basically based on a group of analysts projecting the price. And usually they compute the average price. And they think based on all these averages, the price could go up to 1.99. But this is, again, this is an average estimate. So this is how you do so. Now, if you go to the Wall Street Journal or to Reuters or to Bloomberg, it's basically the same information presented differently. But that's how you read the price of a stock. Now, also, we're going to be talking next about preferred stock. Preferred stock are also quoted, but they're not heavily traded as common stock. So basically, you read them the same way. So let's talk about preferred stock. What is preferred stock? It's a second type of stock. So when we think about equity, when we think about equity investments, again, we have common. We just talk about common or simply stocks and we have preferred. Now, the preferred stock must be preferred. Must be somehow they are treated differently. They are treated better. This is, you know, kind of preferred, right? You want to be preferred. Why? Because you get treated differently. They are preferred in certain way and they are not preferred in other ways. So let's talk about the preferred stock. The first thing we need to understand about preferred stock, they have the features similar to both equity and debt. So preferred stock act as if it's that and equity at the same time. What does that mean? We're going to explain this in a moment. But bear in mind, it's an equity. It's an equity from an accounting perspective, from a finance perspective, preferred stock is equity. It promises to pay a fixed stream of income each year. So when you buy a preferred stock, here's what happened. What that stock comes, something called a par value. So they will tell you the par value, let's assume $100 and they will tell you it's a par value of 6%. It means by buying the stocks, you'll get $6 per year. So you'll take the par value times a percentage. So you are promised a certain amount of income. It's like a bond. You remember when you talked about fixed income? About bonds, you get a specific amount of money. In comparison to common stock, what do you get in common stock? You may not get anything. Why? Because if the company don't make a profit, you don't get anything. If the company makes a profit and the board decides not to pay the profit, you don't get anything. If the company makes a profit, the board decides how much you're going to get the profit. So for the preferred stock, there's a number that you are promised. So that's why it acts like that. That's one thing. But it does not give the shareholder the voting right. Remember in the common stock, you can vote. Here you don't have a voting power. Although it's still considered an equity investment, an equity investment. Now where does that preference go? So here we go. So you always get your money. That's plus, but you cannot vote. That's minus. So what is special about preferred stock? What are some special things? The firm retains discretion to make the dividend payment to the preferred shareholders. It has no contractual obligation. So just like also common stock, they don't have to pay you. They don't have to pay you. Listen to me carefully. Instead, you might buy preferred stock that's cumulative. Now what does cumulative mean? And this is kind of the preference features of preferred stock. This is really the true preferred stock kind of because your dividend is cumulative. Remember, we talked about this preferred stock and you are entitled to $6 per year. Let's assume year one went by, the company did not make any profit. If they did not make any profit, they're going to pay zero dividend because they did not make any profit. Year two, the company did not make any profit. Also, you're not going to get anything. Year three, the company made a load of money. Now here's what's going to happen. If the preferred stock is cumulative, they're going to pay you year one, year two. Then they're going to pay you year three and you do have the preference. So here's what the preference comes. You get your dividend first. You get your dividend before Google City.  So this is where it's preferred. It's preferred in that sense. And cumulative. So unpaid, simply put, unpaid dividend, cumulate and must be paid before any dividend must be paid to the common shareholders. This is where the preference comes into place. You are standing in line before the common shareholders. That's where the preference is. But if the preferred is non-cumulative, so we have preferred non-cumulative, you don't have this right. So remember, we said it's a fixed payment, right? We said it's a fixed payment. They don't have to pay you. It's not a contractual obligation to make, like if you have a bond, you have to make timely payment on the interest. What happens if you don't make the payment on the interest? If you don't make the payment on the interest, the lenders or the creditors will take you to the court and they will put you out of business. So failure to make payments on your bonds will put you into a bankruptcy. But failure to make payment on your preferred stock, you have no obligation. Once you make the money, maybe five, six, seven years down the road, if it's cumulative, they will come back and they will pay you. But you cannot sue them. You cannot force them to pay you unless the company makes a profit. More about preferred stock. Preferred stock are treated as dividend as far as the tax concern. So if it's treated as dividend, it doesn't give the firm any tax deductibility. So therefore, the company that's paying the preferred, the dividend, they don't get a tax deduction. In contrast to the bond, if you are paying interest on the bond, the firm that's paying the interest can get a tax deduction. So that's basically a disadvantage for the paying firm. However, the receiving corporation, listen to me carefully, not the individual, the receiving corporation. So if one corporation invests in another corporation and that corporation pay them dividend, they may exclude, sometime they may exclude more, 50% from taxes. So they will get the dividend, they don't have to pay taxes on it. Sometimes they can exclude 100%. And again, this is a tax issue. If you're interested, go to my YouTube about the dividend received deduction and you would learn about it.  Now individuals, if you own preferred stock and you get the dividend, you don't have that exclusion. And that's what makes preferred yield unattractive relative to other available assets. That's why, because it's not, it's for individual, it's taxable, just like any other dividend. Preferred stock ranks after bonds in terms of priority. Again, if you want to have a priority, we have bondholders, then preferred, then common. What does that mean? It means bondholders are paid first in terms of liquidation. If a company goes out of business, you will satisfy them first. If any money left, the preferred shareholder gets. And if any money left, this group gets last. Now, why am I gonna talk about this? And why do I have the picture of, I hope you know who this is. This is Warren Buffett. Because Warren Buffett, when Bank of America, when Bank of America was almost going out of business in 2008, they called Warren Buffett. They called him and they asked him if he's interested and they're trying to solicit him to buy stocks in Bank of America. And Warren Buffett, yeah, sure, I will invest in your company. So the guy asked him about his email and Warren said, what's an email, right? He doesn't even know what an email is. So to make the long story short, Warren Buffett agreed to invest, I do believe, $6 billion in Bank of America. But here's what he did. He told them, I will buy preferred stock. Why? Because Warren Buffett wanted to hedge his options because the preferred shareholder are before the common shareholders. Not only that, he told them exactly what interest rate he wanted. I don't remember, 5% or 6%. Quite a bit. Then he also asked them for more stock options in case the company does better. He can buy the Bank of America stock. And he did very well actually. But the reason I am showing you this, just to tell you that preferred shareholders, they have some priority, right? They have some priority. Because of the higher risk of the preferred would tend to result in a higher yield than those by the bondholders. Obviously because you are taking more risk than the bondholder, you would expect to be compensated. Because remember, we talked about risk and return. The more risk you take, the higher the expected return. And buying preferred stocks is higher risk than bond. But buying common stock is higher risk than preferred. And you will expect to yield more. Now as I said, there is a variation of preferred stock. Usually I am going to use the term contract, but please don't take it all the way legally. Preferred stock is like a contract. Because think about Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett told Bank of America, issue me preferred stock and here's the terms that I want. So basically, in a sense, it's a contract. And this contract could come in various variations. So we have many different type of preferred stock. The preferred stock can be callable. Just like we talked about bonds, it means the company can buy it back from you. Usually they pay you a premium. They pay you more than what you bought it for. But it's callable. The company decides to buy it back. It's convertible. Convertible by the shareholder. Like Warren Buffett, he was able to, if he wanted to, he also had a convertible feature. He could convert his preferred into common stock at some specified ratio. For example, for every preferred, he'll get five common, or for every five preferred, he'll get one common, or for every five preferred, he get 10 common. It doesn't matter. Some specified ratio. So you could switch teams, basically, being a preferred shareholder to a going from a preferred to a common. And there is a relatively recent innovation. It's adjustable rate preferred stock. And again, this is kind of basically, it's called like you share in the profit. It's like adjustable rate bond ties the dividend to the current market interest rate or to the income of the company. So sometimes, again, the preferred could come in many different variation. I'm not sure if we're going to revisit the term preferred down the road or we'll talk about preferred, but know that preferred comes in different variation. A third type of equity, it's called depository receipt or ADRs, American depository receipts, are certificates traded in the U.S. that represent ownership and share of a foreign company. Think of Sony. Sony is a Japanese company, but if you like Sony, you don't have to have an account in Japan. You can buy Sony in America. You will buy what's called Sony's ADR, American depository receipt. So you will buy shares in Sony and the New York Stock Exchange. So each ADR may correspond to ownership of a fraction of a foreign share, one share or several shares of a foreign corporation. Now, when you buy one ADR, they all have some sort of arrangement. What does it represent in terms of ownership? Because you are an owner in the company. So ADRs were created to make it easier for foreign firms like Sony to satisfy U.S. security registration requirements. And in the U.S. we have many companies. It's basically an honor or like a privilege for foreign companies to be listed in the U.S. because when you are listed on Wall Street, you have access to U.S. dollar and you have access to the American market. The American market is rich and everybody wants to be listed, but you have to meet U.S. security registration. And I'm not really sure if you follow the news these days. The President, Trump, which is we are in 2020, he wanted to delist Chinese companies from the market. So Chinese companies, what they do is they sell their stocks as ADRs and he went to delist them. By delisting them, they can no longer trade. And that's, you know, if you are a U.S. investor and you put money in those stocks, well, that's not good because basically if they're delisted, what are you gonna sell your stock? And usually, you know, it's bad news for the company. That's that. They are the most common way for U.S. investors to directly invest in trade and shares of foreign corporations. Yes, exactly. It's just like, if I want to buy a German company, I don't have to, you know, go to Germany or open an account in Germany because sometimes there's a certain regulation. I can buy a German ADR like Adidas or like Mercedes-Benz. I can buy Mercedes, but, you know, like BMW or whatever, any German company that's listed as an ADR in the U.S. And this is basically what I wanted to talk about in the next session. We would look at stock and bond market indexes. We'll talk about the Dow, the S&P 500 and bond indexes. Then we'll talk later on about derivatives. As always, I would like to remind you to like this recording. Share it. If you think it's helping you, it might help other people. Subscribe to YouTube. And don't forget to check out my website farhatlectures.com for additional resources, whether you are studying for your accounting or finance courses. Study hard. Good luck. And if you are still living through this coronavirus, stay safe.


Key Action 2 of the European Education Programme Erasmus Plus Youth in Action supports long-term transnational cooperation projects such as strategic partnerships, capacity-building projects and transnational youth initiatives. These projects aim to support the quality development of youth work, strengthen professional capacity development of organizations and their youth workers, and, in case of transnational youth initiatives, foster the social commitment and entrepreneurial spirit of young people. Projects can be either sectoral or cross-sectoral, meaning that they may be implemented in the youth field, in the field of educational training, or between different fields, including the economic sector. This module is about strategic partnerships with the main focus on youth. A strategic partnership is a mid- or long-term transnational project designed to develop and share innovative practices, as well as promote cooperation, peer learning and exchanges of experiences. In a strategic partnership project, partners are complementary to each other. At the same time, they are equally and actively involved in the project to learn from and with each other. Strategic partnerships can be of different sizes and conduct different activities, depending on the objective of the project, the organizations involved, the expected impact and other elements. The duration of strategic partnerships is 6 to 36 months. They have a maximum funding of 12,500 euros per month. Strategic partnerships have both local and transnational dimensions, activities and impact. Projects build on the needs in the youth field and address at least one horizontal priority or youth-specific priority of Erasmus Plus. You can apply for two different types of strategic partnership projects, type one, supporting exchange of good practices. Projects allow the development and reinforcement of networks and increase the capacity to work on transnational level, share ideas, methods and practices. Type two, supporting innovation. Projects develop innovative ideas and intellectual outputs for a systemic change in youth work. Innovation also means implementing and transferring new products or methodologies. Strategic partnerships can include a range of activities, local activities, transnational meetings, the development of concepts and different products, learning mobilities and dissemination events. The combination of these activities will be translated into an activity plan or a partnership program. Applications in the youth field can be submitted by NGOs or any other type of public or private organizations working with young people. They can include any number of organizations, but funding is provided to a maximum of 10 partners. Moreover, it is possible to have more than one partner per country involved. Partnerships can also be a combination of partners from different educational fields, but the main impact has to be on the youth field. Applications must be led by an organization established in a program country and must generally involve at least two organizations from different program countries. They may also include organizations from partner countries, provided that they bring essential added value to the project. If you have an innovative idea for a project to improve the quality of your youth work and you consider developing a strategic partnership project, take the following steps. Step 1. Test the relevance. Does your idea fit the needs and policies of your organization and the Rasmus Plus? Step 2. Find partners who are interested in developing the idea with you. Step 3. Design all elements of the project together. Management, budget, program, division of tasks, planning and dissemination of the expected outcomes. Make sure your aims and objectives, responsibilities, activity plan, impact, dissemination and budget are coherent. Step 4. Check the deadlines and quality assessment criteria. Submit the application form. For that, you must be registered with the ECAS and have a PIC code. More info on how to register, you will find on the website of the ECAS or your national agency. Detailed information on the criteria, procedures and deadlines can be found in the Rasmus Plus program guide.


I quit and if this were a YouTube video, I should have made a video about it and you would do I and in capital letters quit, Q-U-I-T, why I quit. I've seen videos where people say why I quit and they didn't even quit. It's they talked about why they might quit or why somebody like them might have quit it or why they thought about quitting but they didn't quit. Are there things Gordon Lang that other YouTubers do that you don't think that you would ever or you tend not to do? Unboxing.  Unboxing. How can you, that's like, now I tell you what, this goes back to that song, Unbreak My Heart, which at the time I thought, that's not even a word. How do you mean, Unbreak My Heart? How about, make me feel better, cheer me up please. Unbreak My Heart, unbox my camera. And that is why I gave up YouTube for three years which is, which really confused the algorithm because I was pouring my heart into these technical reviews and testing every aspect of a camera and trying to get that across to people. And then some kid doing an unboxing video gets more views and all he's done is filmed him opening a box. He doesn't even test the camera or turn it on. He just opens the box and they were getting more views. And I was bewildered by this. I just couldn't understand why this was more popular and it put me off so much. I thought this, I kind of came to terms that that's what people wanted to see or that's what people wanted to watch on that platform. And that I wasn't right for that platform. I was just some crusty old dinosaur. So I gave up. I went back to purely written content for three years. It didn't close the channel obviously. I left it there because it was hosting my videos that were also part of my written content. But I got in a right stop over it and it was unboxing that did it. And I still to this day would not. Now I love opening boxes and some of the packaging and some things like Apple products and all some high-end consumer products. It's nice. It's nice package. They put some thought into it. It's cool, but I guess what they're doing is a review of the packaging. If I look at it that way, then it's more acceptable to me. I think it might just be the word on box that I have a thing about. You've done an unboxing video. Oh, yeah, I've done lots. I unboxed a Chinese takeaway from Waitrose. You unboxed one of my t-shirts. I did. In a blatant attempt to get some coverage from someone else. It was to test what merch is like. Of course it was. But it did have the benefit of plugging you to my 12 subscribers at the time that they went down. It didn't and it didn't get culled in the video featured by BBC News at 6pm on BBC One. What is the hardest part of running a YouTube channel? I think the expectations that you have for its performance not being met and feeling disheartened by the fact that you've put this work into something that you think should be doing better. And it doesn't. It's what affects artists of all. You know, Van Gogh was frustrated that he wasn't getting enough attention. We're all the same. I'm not the same as Van Gogh, obviously, but everyone thinks they're better than they are maybe or that they're not being recognized for something. Frustrated that, yeah, maybe I'm not as good as I think I am or that you want the videos to do better. You think they deserve better and they're not doing as well as you think. And then you see someone else who's done the similar video, similar subject and theirs is doing way better than yours. And you think that's just not fair. Why is that doing better than mine?  Is it the thing they covered? Is it because they've somehow got more followers that they're being recommended more? You don't know what it is, but that's probably the hardest thing for me of all. And you've got to kind of stop looking at it. Stop looking at like, well, you can't help it. You do look at the number of views you've had.  And it did put me off. Like I say, I quit. I quit. And if this were a YouTube video, I should have made a video about it. And you would do I and in capital letters, quit, Q-U-I-T. Why I quit? I've seen videos where people say why I quit and they didn't even quit. They talked about why they might quit or why somebody like them might have quit it or why they thought about quitting, but they didn't quit. I have, however, started to use capitals in some of my titles to shout, to shout for that last bit of attention. Please watch or I'll quit. Gordon Lang from Camera Labs, thank you so much. You've been so generous with your time and literally your gigabytes because I think we're gonna have to stitch this together now. We're just gonna involve a massive transfer. This video will never see the light of day because I won't be able to get the file to you. It's true and then Zoom will delete it. Before we go, can you pick a favorite video idea that you haven't yet made? Unboxing. And you would like to make one? I think I should. What if it does really well? Maybe they should all be unboxing from now on. Who doesn't like origami? Boxes are nice and they've put me in a box. You see, they've pigeonholed me in a box. So why don't I talk about boxes? That will show them. Could the grand reveal, revealed in capitals? Why I quit unboxing? This is gold. If you reach it to your own this video, this is the gold. This is what you pay for. Gordon, thanks so much. You're very welcome. Thank you for having me. Shall we just sit here awkwardly in this two-shot? And... How are you gonna do this? How are you gonna... No. This isn't cinematic enough. Let's do it in wide-screen. Like in Abba the Movie. Do you remember that? Let's do it in wide-screen. And please, hit the subscribe button if you want to see more Great British YouTubers. There's a playlist and a podcast. All the details and links are in the description. I'm Neil Mossey and I'll see you on the very next episode of Great British YouTubers. Do you want a series of reactions now? Did you used to have to do that on the TV? They used to ask me to do that. They'd go, can you do one more? You go... They'd say, no, now sarcastic. Disagree. Incredulous. Angry. Those are all thumbnail pictures as well. I know. That's what you do at the end of the video. You record your thumbnail, but I want some text. So you have to position yourself to one side so you can put the text here. Why I quit unboxing. Oh, my goodness.


Mae eich dod yn 90 oedd o 101 oed ddysgu. Mae'n lleol yn fawr, ond rhai gynhyrchu. Rwy'n fawr, mae'r fawr yn gweithio'n osbydd ar hynny. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio ar hynny. Mae'n gweithio'n fawr o'r ddau i'r gweithio. Mae'n gweithio i'r fawr, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. A hynny'n gweithio'n gweithio, a dyna bod yn gweithio'n gweithio i'r llun, If I'm honest, and so at that point, 2-1 up, we had to really dig in and credit to them each and every one of them did, the lads who came on, came on with great impact, Jan and Fadain and Dion as well. Everybody who played a part tonight will look back on the performance and they need to congratulate himself because we got in the situation, not of our making because I just think the referee stepped in and that made a decision that affected. It could have affected the result, it certainly affected the game in terms of our performance because we were only able to play as well once we went to 10 men, but we were still a threat and clearly the better team, more accomplished team and absolutely deserved a win tonight. The first hour, yes, the two goals on the front foot and everything that made up that part of the game, but the second part of the game, the final half hour where we really had to dig in as you mentioned, that must make you really proud as a manager tonight. Yeah, those are the characteristics we're going to have to display from now to the end of the year. It was important that we bounced back quickly, I've said before, if you're on a run where you're not getting the results you deserve. We didn't deserve any of the weekend prior to that, so we had two home games which we should have had six points from, but for whatever reason we didn't. So tonight was really important to get back on track in terms of three points on the board. It's not easy coming to these places. I just thought tonight, certainly towards the end, our fans were magnificent. Tonight they just sucked the ball in for us and sucked it into the corners and we were able to get us over the line, so really pleased for them. I'm pleased for the guys, I just thought everybody put a shift in tonight. You mentioned those fans, how important was it to share that moment with them at the end? It was great scenes, 1400 of them here on the tubes. Yeah, I mean it was magnificent. They were cheering right from start to finish. Obviously we're enjoying our performance, but obviously a little bit concerned once we went down to 10 men, but once they understood that we needed them to get behind us and get us over the line, they were magnificent. So that's why we all went over, it was important that we recognised that. You speak a lot about momentum, obviously a victory like this against an opponent in a similar area of the table to us heading into Saturday, another away game down in London must do as the world of good. Yeah, it puts us in good hearts. We needed to get back on track, we've been able to do that, so everybody's looking forward to the game of the weekend. It's not going to be easy, a difficult team to go up against, they play in a certain way, but I just feel we've got a real desire and a commitment to what we're trying to do this year and if we play like we did tonight we'll be fine.


Welcome to Building Tomorrow, a show about the ways tech and innovation are making the world a happier, healthier, and more prosperous place. But today we're going to discuss something rather less bullish. One broad problem in the tech sector that has far-reaching significance is the gender gap, the fact that fewer women than men are employed in tech companies, they receive lower pay for comparable work, and they are more likely to endure sexual harassment in the workplace. But before we get into it, let me introduce our roundtable hosts. As always, I'm Paul Matsko, and I'm joined by Cato's director of emerging technology, Matthew Feeney. We are talking today with a special guest, Ashken Kazarian, who is the director of Civil Liberties at Tech Freedom. Welcome to the show, Ashken. Paul, thank you for having me. To start, Ashken, I wanted to ask you about how you ended up here in DC. You have a background in law. I think I saw that you went to Moscow State University for a law degree. Then you got a master's from Yale. You did a lot of research into law and the art world. So how did you go from that in Russia to Yale to DC to tech? Well, it's more linear than you would think, but it's also a little bit all over the place. So I think you should start by saying that I started my undergrad when I was 15. And everywhere in the world, aside from America, basically, you can get your law degrees or your undergraduate degree. So I started law school at 15. It was a five-year program. And I just kind of experimented with every single possible area of law, going from human rights to corporate law, to civil procedure, to intellectual property. And by the time I graduated, I had an idea that I wanted to continue studying law. That was one of the things that I wanted. And so I started a PhD, which is the one on art markets, which is all the expertise I have on that issue is just research into how countries actually regulate their art markets. And do they let art in? Do they let art out? What about art that was still in during wars? What about artist rights? All of us questions in the upcoming PhD feats that is still TBD, hopefully 2019, coming into your TV boxes. We will find some way to make that tech-related and have you back on the show to talk about it. Oh, absolutely. What about high-tech art? Something like that. So that was one part of my legal career. The other part was as I was in law school, Russia was going through a lot of changes. We had Vladimir Putin, our president, and our head of government, Dmitry Medvedev, kind of switch roles. And one became prime minister, the other one became president. And then suddenly, prime minister was more important than the president. And we've had a lot of laws adopted that were both taking parts of our free speech away and also implementing surveillance mechanisms, surveillance state that was even broader than we had imagined and knew from the Soviet times. That was a very formative time for me. And I, going into law school, knew I wanted to work for public interest. I didn't see myself in a law firm. I didn't see myself in a corporation. This helped me identify the areas that I was interested in. So having that all kind of in my head, but not having an outlet in Russia, because there are very few NGOs left because of the way we regulate NGOs. I did some volunteer work for this Glassness Defense Foundation, which is one of the oldest NGOs from Soviet times that protects journalist rights. And we would get calls from journalists in Siberia or all around the country saying, I think I'm being followed. I think something's going to happen to me or I'm being tapped. My phone is being tapped.  And there was no way of fighting them, I guess. At that point, at least I didn't see them. At the same time came an opportunity and an idea of studying abroad with full intention of returning. And so I did a Fox Fellowship at Yale University, which was, I would say, my first year at the Yale Law School. And as I was there, the war in Ukraine happened. And I think that really sealed for me understanding that Russia's not getting better and there is no way for me to be safe and for my family to be safe if I want to continue doing the work I was doing. And after that, I decided, okay, I'm going to get a master's of law from the law school that will help me establish myself more in the Western world with having a degree from this amazing school. And it was also the school that gave me an opportunity to dig into the policy, not care about the actual legal texts as much, which was great. So we were talking about economics and sociology and ethics. I think more than we actually talked about laws in that year. And yeah, that was my experience. I graduated in 2016 and I knew I wanted to do free speech online. I knew I wanted to do surveillance reform and searching for jobs. I found a job application online, which was tech freedom, applied, got it, moved to DC, have been in that job ever since, moved on from a legal fellow to now kind of heading all of our civil liberties projects, which just means that I do way more work. And I'm enjoying it a lot. I think moving to DC in 2016 was definitely an experience I'll be telling my grandchildren about. Yeah, so for people who don't know, what is tech freedom? Tech freedom is a non-partisan think tank here in Washington DC that does tech policy and that includes telecom policy. And that includes regulation of the internet in general. It includes free speech regulation online and also all of our civil liberties projects that are encryption and cybersecurity and surveillance reform, all of those areas, also AI and what's coming up next in that. We dab into sharing economy and all of the issues that surround innovation and technology in our always changing world. And I would say that our work kind of has two paths. One path is legal. We fell amicus briefs. We fell with agencies arguing our position and trying to move forward in that. And then there's a policy work, which is way less fast rewarding in a way because you go and you try to educate policymakers. You go to staffers.  You write op-eds. You create content like podcasts. We have a tech policy podcast. Please subscribe. I'm going to do that plug-in right now. We'll put a link in the notes. Thank you. And so we kind of just try to educate the public about what's going on right now in tech policy and also what's coming up down the pipeline. And in this career that you've had, when would you say you first became aware of gender disparity in the tech sector or even the DC policy world? I'm going to limit this to United States because obviously we can talk about this more globally. Day one would be a good example. And I was definitely the only lawyer woman in my organization that actually compared to other places that I've seen in DC, employs a lot of minorities and we do hire women. But I was the only female lawyer at that point and that was very interesting because I came from this little secluded law school world where honestly everyone was very aware of social dynamics and very interested in them. So day one, you kind of walk into a room and I'm not going to name a staffer who I was meeting with, but he assumed I was the secretary. And then my boss said, oh, no, no, this is Ash. She's one of our lawyers. She just came to us from the law school and this man became a little red, felt bad, but this is just a normal kind of dynamic part of the social dynamic that I think most of the women encounter, no matter what field they are in, if you're young, there's an assumption that you're in a lower position, if you're attractive, there's an assumption that, I don't know. There are a lot of assumptions and obviously I want to premise this by saying I'm not an expert in this area that is more kind of an intersection between feminism and ethics and just sociology. I'm a lawyer, but I was articles editor for Law and Feminism Journal. So I read a lot of literature about this and then I experienced the tech world myself. So I think I'm going to speak from my own experience and the knowledge that I have. Yeah. Well, in your good company here, I'm building tomorrow, we are rarely experts about the things we speak of sometimes, but you know, speak for yourself. I mean, by training, I'm a historian. So what I know about tech policy is what I learn on the job. So, so I think that situation where you go into a space that is dominated by men and then there are like, I mean, in that particular case, it's not intentional.  It's not in, it's not, there's not mal intent behind it yet.  Like it's an awkward social situation. I mean, so even in the least harmful or least overt cases, it's still a barrier to integration into the workplace. It's still, something has to be overcome. I think that's worth reminding me. A lot of the statistics will focus on what percentage of women in tech sectors have experienced sexual harassment directly. And that's a very bad thing. But even if someone hasn't experienced sexual harassment, that doesn't mean they haven't had problems because of the gender disparity in the workforce. Yes. And I think there is important to make a distinction between tech policy and policy world and the tech sector that we're going to talk about. So the tech policy world that obviously I'm and you guys are part of in DC is a bigger part of a policy world. And the number of women that are in it is different from a number of women that are in the tech world per se. Partially, we have more women in policy. And if you talk about tech policy, I think there are fewer. Just Matthew probably knows from all the coalition meetings and conferences that we have that we're still aware that there are less women. When you put together a panel, you always think about, OK, I got I got to make sure this is not for white dudes talking to each other because that's very easy to do. But there is an amazing network of women that exist in DC. And it's a very open and welcoming network. It's not on paper. It's just kind of out there. But when I meet young students and I meet women who are interested in this policy and they ask me, oh, how do I get into this particular kind of subfield or how do I get an internship at this place? There is always someone I can refer them to. And there's always knowledge that I can give them about my experience. That will help them. And so I think it's it's kind of growing and it's getting better. But we also have to keep in mind that it's important for us to be aware of it because when you shape policy, you need the minority voices. And we're right now just talking about women. Like let's talk about minority women. That's a whole different subcategory that experiences multiple different structures that are oppressing on them. So we have to be aware of that because those voices need to be in the room when policy decisions are made. What do you think about the the area that I know you you work quite a bit in? And I do, too. The surveillance in particular, I was just thinking about my my Twitter feed. And I would say that some of the the go-to people in that field are women, for sure, and like Fourth Amendment lawyers, professors that some of the best people out there are women. And I think what you just touched on is really important because it's worth reminding ourselves, you know, that when we're talking about surveillance and minority groups, of course, minorities in virtue of being minorities tend to be on the receiving end of it and have a unique perspective that white straight men might not have the same position to talk about that sort of stuff. But maybe we should shift to so there's there's tech policy, which is what we do here. There's law, which has more women. Yeah. And so Fourth Amendment lawyers that you talk about. Yeah, actually, the legal field has pretty much an even number of men and women as of right now, I would say. You look at law school graduates, it's yes, absolutely. So we're doing all right in there. Yeah, there are still issues with pay, pay discrepancies, but that just the over disparity with number of employees and rank of employees is much less severe in law versus. I mean, so the numbers I saw for the tech sector, tech sector, not tech policy was women composed about a third of the workforce at the major tech giants think your Microsofts or Facebooks or Google's. But even that somewhat obscures the real situation, which is when you look at the employment patterns, it tends to be support staff where female employees at those tech giants are clustered, you know, human resources and the like and not in the engineering and like, you know, direct engagement in creating tech sector. So like the discrepancy between that and other fields that require, you know, lots of education, lots of expertise and skill is quite striking, where we've essentially reached parity. There was this one study that was done, the striking divide even within STEM fields. So this isn't even just a you can't extrapolate across all of science and engineering and math, so obviously going back half a century, women are excluded from the workforce, you know, cultural forces of, you know, patriarchy and women need to stay in the domestic sphere. So there is a low female labor workforce participation rate in the mid 20th century, that number starts to rise. And in a lot of sectors, including in medicine, including in other areas of academic science, it's near parity, the number of female undergraduates to male undergraduates approaches parity today. But that you look at a trend chart of all these other fields, it's going up, up, up, reaching near parity by the 90s, except for computer programming, which goes tracks right along going up, up, up from the 20% tile climbs, and then it drops drastically in the 1980s, but only really for computer engineering. And in the 1980s, I don't think people expected, I mean, obviously, they didn't know about the digital revolution, the creation of Silicon Valley in its modern sense. I mean, back then, it was all about, you know, building literal computers, personal computers, not about the digital side, the internet side of that really. So it's the so to me, that's really instructive. Something was going on with in computer programming, specifically with these kind of unforeseeable consequences when computer programming became kind of the key to the modern global economy, taking everyone by surprise 1020 years later. Absolutely. Right now, I was actually talking to a professor just now who teaches economics at a very prestigious university. And she told me that a lot of the kids who used to go into economics major thinking that's the most lucrative major because they wanted a business education, not going to computer science. Oh, interesting. Yeah. Because you can get a six figure paycheck in theory straight out of school straight out of school. Yeah, they don't do graduate school anymore because we don't need to. And I think it's important that you touch upon the education part, because this starts at elementary school level, this starts at the set, like first elementary and secondary education, where the way the science classes are constructed, the way the syllabus is constructed, the way the school and their kind of just socio economic ratio is their last classes for minorities, their last classes for girls, and their organizations right now that are working to make that better. There are girls who code an amazing organization based in in the Bay Area that makes sure girls get not only training, but books sometimes and just syllabuses and outreach to know that there is math out there. I think so that's the number one kind of step ground zero of the issue. It's also partially the social influences and biases are society and we're talking about America and Europe. We're not even talking about countries that are still in a more developing stage that have different gender systems. Countries still think that women are the emotional part, rational versus emotional. We have a grandma master Nigel Short saying that women are just not hardwired to play chess, which I would argue is wrong because I beat my dad and he's really good. He has some kind of a ranking near the reputation of Russia when it comes to chess. But you know, this goes back to Aristotle. I'm sure people at Kato would love that I just dropped named Aristotle. Just for you, Aaron.  And when they should choose, you know, their major, they should choose a kind of their path, they should go into humanities. And this, I love my mother, but I remember around eighth or ninth grade, I said, you know, I want to become an astronomer. And she said, Well, there's only boys in that school. And they're all weird, too. Do you really want to do that? That was the limit that she put on me. And obviously, my mother is a law professor and has always been a feminist icon for me. But that question, honestly, I think I was really bad at math. So this would have never happened just because I'm not wired that way. But that exists in everyone's mind, not only I'm not saying only bad people think women are not wired to do hard sciences. I myself think I'm not wired to the hard sciences, whereas probably if I had a better math teacher or a special program that I could do after school, I'd be a software developer right now. Well, something that Paul dropped into the notes in preparation was a theory put forward by Alex Tabarak, who's an economist at George Mason, who he had this interesting theory that I haven't really unpacked. So I don't have strong opinions on it one way or the other. But so correct me if this summary isn't correct, but basically that actually women are better than men when it comes to or just as good at STEM, if not slightly better. But that men aren't as good at a wider field that actually women outperform men when it comes to a lot of the humanities and that that might account for some of the disparity that we see. It's not not what like some people might say, which is well, women aren't wired for it and men are. It's actually a very interesting other kind of thing going on according to Tabarak. Yeah, his his his ideas that, you know, you get to that crucial stage in upper high school where you're thinking about where you're going to college and what you're going to study, what your major going to be. And when you look at actual scores and advanced placement classes, and so this is a very U.S. context, but I think it applies more broadly. Women's scores in AP science, AP mathematics classes, any of the STEM fields are just as good as men's in high school. And yet fewer of them select STEM majors, especially computer programming majors in college than men. And so the question is why that makes no sense, right? So the disparity is not a function of anything inherent. They're doing just as well, just as qualified. But what he notes in the in the piece, which is quite fascinating, is that women outperform men on other measures. So they're outperforming in humanities, basically anything involving literacy and communication. And so they relative to their equal performance to men in STEM, they're outperforming men in other fields, which pushes some and then I think you layer on. So they're just it's not a function of male superiority in STEM. It's a function of male disability and everything that's not STEM, which I think is a really fascinating. It turns that all on its head. But I think you layer on top of that the cultural forces, right? I mean, and it's not malicious. Your mom was not trying to keep you from maximizing your dreams and what not. But there is that kind of informal pressure. There's this great Planet Money episode where they dig into this phenomenon, the drop in the number of women going into computer programming, computer science. They basically say it's this self-fulfilling prophecy that in the early 80s, we created a cultural narrative, which was that programming and computers are for nerds. It's the creation, the invention of the nerd really in the late 70s. And nerd somehow is a gendered figure. It's only a man. We gendered it. Yeah. So we created the nerd, we made him, made it male. And then we decided that was actually weird and uncool. And but someone to be pitied, but also someone to be admired for their smarts. But they were so socially inept. And then the nerd becomes the hero if he makes enough money. And if he acts in honestly, just if you watch any of those movies like Revenge of the Nerds or any of the 80s, they act like a really rapey manner. So if they make money and they trick a girl in the sleeping with them, that's like a core part of nerd movie culture in the 80s as well. So like I wasn't I wasn't born in the 80s. So I haven't seen those movies, but they sound horrible. They are. Yeah. If you really want to blast from the past, Revenge of the Nerds is probably the first one to start with. But well, it's problematic now. So it's there's that, but something that I've always found rather odd is and, you know, you can admire Steve Jobs for a lot of things, right?  But I think it's really regrettable that a lot of people seem to think that because he was successful, we should idolize that form of management, right? It's like very odd, right? And I think some people might say, well, you know, in the long run, the nerds win. Look at Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Zuckerberg. Look at they're doing really well. But there are other parts of that culture that aren't very healthy, right?   He hasn't watched Forever of Season One because they introduced two nerdy women into the mix. So I guess I cut off before, but well, so there is the nerdy woman that Sheldon or is it Sheldon who there are two nerdy, so Horowitz, Mary's a nerdy biologist who also makes way more money than him. And then Sheldon, Mary's, this is a lot of spoilers, guys. Big Bang theory is on season 10, so get over yourself.  Well, yeah, I'm I stand corrected. I guess I see the stereotype, but I see the stereotype and I see that this actually kind of is a great segue into what we're going to talk next, which is the workplace systems and that tech is a voice club. It really is. The thing is, you look at the Silicon Valley culture and you hear from women who have worked there and have gotten out or are still there. And the way it's structured is. The nerds are the top of the hill. They rule the show and they just they were weird in college, right? And kind of obviously over exaggerating and putting a negative spin on it. But they were anti-social and didn't really get with women and now they're cool and they make money and they're in Silicon Valley and they just go kind of and approach women in an irrespectful way.  Well, they've been they've been imbued with a sense of toxic masculinity that comes out of that that sense of I mean, again, it's a it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.  They were born in the 70s. They're kids in the 80s absorbing this idea of toxic masculinity, what it means to be a nerd. The the need for revenge to get back to show the world their stuff. And by now they're in their 40s. They're in their 40. Basically, all of our tech leadership, whether it's Elon Musk, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, even Mark Zuckerberg is a little bit younger, born in the 80s. But like there's a whole generation who are inculcated in that mindset, who now are adults with power and money and they're acting like they were kind of taught to act. Well, so in 2018, though, it's worth asking the question. I get asking Ash, right? Taking a look at the valley, do you think that enough people that view this as a problem? And then I suppose, secondly, what are the kind of solutions that the industry has tried to roll out, if any? All right. So let's start by saying that I don't think the value sees this as a problem. I think it's a problem that has been set out loud. And there are people who are fighting really good fight of trying to bring it up to the front. But this company still make money and they still keep the employers that are there. So unless an issue gets a huge publicity, nothing is going to happen. And this is a little sidetrack, but this is actually a San Francisco case that I've just been very appalled by. It's a professor that does. This is kind of innovation policy. So it applies that does anti vaping kind of research. And he has been accused of harassment by multiple graduate students. And you have a plethora of different things that has been accused off from cutting a student out of credit for the research we've done to discriminating them to harassing them to trying to basically assault them.  And so we had that one story go viral with Uber employee who talked about her experiences and how it was so bizarre.  Jackets is just kind of levered jackets that the bikers would get and was considered cool. But the only two women in a group wouldn't get them because it wasn't something girls would wear by the assumption of a supervisor. And that's just the top of iceberg. Obviously, she went through a lot of work, placed discrimination, and I encourage everyone to read about this. And I think this was partially the cause of a CEO stepping down. But this is not this is just localized incidents. And there is no framework to address addresses in Silicon Valley. Even if you look at startup startups and numbers, only 15% of the startups have at least a female co lead or a female CEO. They're just not enough women and they're not enough voices that would make this a structure that can be applied. And answering your question about what can be done. Awareness is the first one. People just talking about it. I think us talking about it is important because you guys obviously have a lot of listeners who maybe have heard pieces here and there but don't understand how awful and big the picture is. And talking about it then talking about the ethics, talking about workplace training, talking about being aware. A lot of people get upset if they hear that we should hire more women because they think they're taking jobs away from men or that it's kind of this weird affirmative action in workplace. But you can get better results and it's been shown that if you actually hire more women, your company gets better numbers, it gets better efficient, it gets just way ahead. So honestly, in the end, everyone wins. Well, it turns out that, you know, most businesses are in the business of selling to the American public and the American public is about half female. Imagine that.  It's going to do a better job of that if it reflects the public. Even if you look at companies that are led by women, most of them are more in the kind of area that's still considered female. So shopping, dating, socializing, the companies that women are kind of putting forward. And I think it's amazing that they're creating these companies and they're just fascinating role models. But they still kind of in the tech world, they probably found funding and a niche because venture capitalists were like, oh, she knows, she knows about dating. She knows about clothing. Yeah, she can figure that out. We can give her money. She she seems smart and she she understands it. So that's still a problem. And with few women that headed companies that didn't do so well, I think they should be treated like men. So I'm forgetting her name, but the one who kind of created this company that's going to analyze her blood without. Oh, yeah, it was. She was on the cover of every magazine. She was. I forget. Elizabeth Holmes. Yes. Elizabeth Holmes or Thanatos. Or well, we all know what happened when Yahoo tried to bring in a female CEO and she just kind of ran around and gave you interviews. But they should have the singing standards applied to them as men. I am not saying take it easy on them. I'm just saying give them a chance. Yeah, I mean, it's actually interesting, you know, which companies there's almost these carve outs where it's like, OK, yes, we will let women run or be involved in these operations because we think of them as, you know, female spaces. You can even see that that when you look at the list of the tech companies with the highest percentage of female employees, it tends to be things like Pinterest, Pandora, eBay, whereas the ones with the fewest female employees are Microsoft, Google, right? So there's almost the consumer versus back end engineering folk difference. And yeah, so even where you see success, it's still kind of falling into these preconceived notions of how gender affects what can be produced and in technology.   That makes sense. So, you know, you enter into a space that's dominated that's 80 percent male that you then allow a few token women in subservient roles, right, like at at Tesla in the New York article you sent or like they're going to experience sexual discrimination almost as a matter of course because men aren't used to working with them.  They sexually harass them even like. So one argument would be that the sexual discrimination is a function of the gender gap. The other would be to say, no, the gender gap is caused by sexual discrimination, making women feel unwelcome in the hostile workplace, being more likely to drop out, thus perpetuating the gender gap. So how do you grapple with which causes which with that relationship? I think the discrimination comes from within, right, comes from our societal structure and the way men grow up and see how they can treat women and the way male dominant workplaces operate. And so that kind of, I think, is the cause of a gender gap because, well, who do you want to hire? Do you want to hire John who was on the lacrosse team and he kind of, you know, can relate to your lacrosse days and using your frat? Just yeah, you guys can go out and get drinks. Or do you want to hire Jane who, well, has same, if not better grades and kind of can do the same, Jane can be into football. So for example, this is personal anecdote, but I watch a lot of American football and healthy amount. I watch the NFL Draft. I'm on a fantasy team, by the way, the only girl in my fantasy team. And I'm top free right now. I'm just saying I'm definitely making playoffs. And in a lot of settings when football comes up and I say something, I'm literally asked to name three players on the team. And I just go by naming the head coach and the defensive coordinator and the offensive coordinator and saying, well, you guys just drafted. Well, you just drafted Patrick Mahomes. Where are you talking about?  You're not faking it. So it's that mindset. It's that attitude towards women. And I don't think we really dive into it because obviously we can do this like we can do a whole series on this. But the workplace discrimination is also it's not just the harassment, which is awful. It's not just passing women for promotion or not hiring them. By the way, there has been a lot of research in both tech and just in general, where you would send resumes and they would be identical aside from the gender name on gender name on top. And if it's John, he had a higher chance than if it was a Jane. I once was asked during an interview for a job if I'm planning to have children anytime soon or getting married, which is illegal, by the way. Just just putting this out there. It's illegal. I didn't have any energy to sue. But this is kind of just that just top tip of iceberg. And then we have boys going to get a drink after work and not inviting girls or going to watch a game and not inviting the girls and then making decisions that are concerning about that concern the workflow. That some guy who was out with them gets a project, whereas you should have done that conversation in the office and heard different pitches. But no, instead, you just kind of assign it to the guy sitting next to you or a guy's going to smoke break. They are so many things that happen throughout just every work day that are just structured because of a discrimination that comes in decades and centuries and just thousands of years that we have built up that we don't even think about that affects women. And so I think I definitely think that creates a gender gap. Yeah, that makes sense. Well, and something else I put on the notes here, which is that it's not I mean, this truly is a global issue because the tech sector is a global sector. And America is the leading country for now. Yeah. And you go to Silicon Valley and we import as much talent as we educate ourselves here in the United States. So one of the other factors that plays into this is that the U.S. is a destination for global programmers. So STEM graduate students. I went to Penn State, you know, the overall majority of our computer science graduate students were from Indian subcontinent or East Asia, right? So lots of Chinese in the in Pakistani overwhelmingly male. So you have a lot of men coming from countries with a history of even I mean, in a sense, when it comes to gender and the workforce, they're a century behind the U.S. and the rest of the developing world. In some fields, you actually, if you look at India's numbers, I think in class right now for STEM in general and software to particularly they have an even number of men and women. The other thing though is who comes here, whose family, if the way those countries operate is you spend your money on the boy because the boy is going to go and make something of himself and be the provider. You don't usually invest in the girl and same applies with two people who employ. If you have a soft female software developer from India and a male one, your worried if a female one would get married and have children and want them to leave even though it's not really a thing in America. But you're worried about just continuity of investing into a foreign employer and going for a very painful, trust me, I've been for a immigration process. Not getting any easier either. Nope. No. What was it? It's actually I mean, we're expecting everyone in the tech sector is worried that essentially we're not going to see the effects of it for like 20 or 30 years. But the number of foreign graduate students are going to come into STEM programs is the number of visa approvals is just plummeting because the administration wants fewer of them. And you won't see ramifications now. There'll be a lag, but that means fewer people starting startups in Silicon Valley.  Yeah. The number of foreigners and immigrants who start started startups is like 50 percent or something. It's insane. That was a moment in the last presidential election and the aftermath of it. I forget exactly when. But Steve Bannon, when he actually explicitly said something like, no, like, you know, I do worry about the Indian engineers coming here. He said, no, these are we have to be we have to have an immigration system that takes into account all education levels. And I'm totally fine to exclude the postgraduate Indian state. That was really chilling when I thought, wow, they that guy's got an ideology. That's for sure. Yeah. Now, for a second time, can we talk a little bit about what should we do?  And I suppose there's kind of two related questions here, which is what can we do and what should we do to address this gender disparity going forward? All right. So as I said, it has to be a mindset shift. We have to, as an industry, and I'm talking about both policy and the tech industry, we should be partnering with educators and schools and universities to demonstrate what kind of projects exist for women to come into. And we also need to be aware of the gender structures that exist within our organizations and within the industry and just navigate around them because these women are going to found our future and they're going to we need to encourage them to come into this world because they have the opportunity to shape the future in many amazing ways that we can't even imagine right now. So I think it has to be a very coordinated, not like one big council. There are a lot of wonderful organizations, as I already mentioned, girls who code, they're girls in tech, they're women in technology, they're DC Femme tech. And those are just few that I can name at the top of my head that work in this, but they need more publicity. They need more funding. They need fresh blood. Building Tomorrow is produced by Tess Terrible. If you enjoy our show, please rate, review and subscribe to us on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts to learn about Building Tomorrow or to discover other great podcasts. Visit us on the web at libertarianism.org.


news. Update. Everyone Basel Chopin. Yeah, this is the Tiger Financial News Network Basel Chopin. Yeah, I've just finished my target admissions hour every, every market day at 10 o'clock to 11. And now we're at 11 o'clock to the Tiger Financial News Network. Market update does down 525 and 35,706. This is really important because now with that doji candle of Friday, this pullback suggests that the daily chart has now gone to a sell signal and probably will go to a sell mode very quickly. And that's important because the S&P, which is trading at this particular point is down, let's see what we're looking at. Down 85 at 45.90 is already in the sell mode. Very sharp pullback from 48,18.62 all time high. And that weekly chart will see this week what's going to be with that weekly chart because it close any day below the 45,77 level would be, that would be quite ugly. QQQ, NDAC 100, trading down, taking out all the support in the 378,377 level is at 370 down 970. This is what we've been talking about for weeks that the NASDAQ, the darlings of the NASDAQ are now having a very sharp pullback. And in fact, they haven't even held the support of last week. And that's kind of sad. So what we are looking at is within the context of the QQs, you now have resistance is at 370 in 377 to 382 area that it has to try to overcome later in the week. IWM, the Russell 2000, we're looking at down at 212, down 4. It just couldn't get into the 228 a week or so ago and now it's in the 212. It must hold the 206s. Otherwise, that's a real problem on a weekly basis. And you're looking at gold. Gold is normally you'd find gold getting some kind of buying here. But at this particular point, it's just kind of stuck us down three. It's not doing anything, not much at 1794. It needs to get into the 1815,1820 area and hold there for it to continue moving higher. You're looking at the dollar, our dollar, which would be long since 2018 April at 90.07 Australia, 96.11 holding quite nicely. The TLT, which bonds is just it's down 52 cents at 141.74. They might show the target conditions. I was just a moment ago, we were looking at all these different different bonds and the yields. I have to tell you the yields have really gone much, much higher. They still haven't broken up, but they have gone much higher. And crude oil, crude oil is holding okay. It's down 31 and 78.59 at a peak D. You'll see what happens this week. If it starts to trade in the 83 area, that's going to I think impact the market a little bit. Have a great day. Stay tuned for Larry Persevento, a wonderful programming coming up all day. Don't forget we started nine with Tommy Jr., market kickoff. Have a great day. Check out my opening call my dating years later. See


no baby. Trini girl natural. Hi everyone, welcome to my channel. I'm coming to you with yet another failed video I guess. This one is a trim film.   I'm calling it the reverse trim method because the last time I trimmed as you guys saw I pull it straight did this trimming thing twisted and then trimmed a little extra if I saw any this time let it dry anything that I saw in the coil so I kind of recoiled it too to kind of pull the ends and make sure I saw everything then trim anything I saw in the coil of the twist then untwisted a little bit and then trimmed each side because like I trimmed the coil first then the hair whereas before I trimmed the hair first then the coil yes I got it right so yeah so I'm calling it like the reverse that's the reverse trim method but it didn't really work for me so pulling like this and trimming is a lot easier for me and it's a lot more sense for me because I'm not great at twisting anyway and I'm not used to twists and coils and all of that and having to deal with that so this easy peasy but trying to deal with like a coil already doing its own thing and already setting a certain way and going sideways basically and trying to trim was just really hard really difficult for me so I kind of regretted it as soon as I started and saw what it was going to be like for me I want to just trim the damage and trim as little as possible I guess I don't want to just like be trimming off coils especially since my hair is very coily and one little coil could be like two inches so you know I wanted a little more precision I guess than that method gave plus I wanted to be able to kind of cut straight-ish and not cut a coil that's going left while I'm trying to cut across you know it was just like too much going on so the pros of the method is trimming dry hair because I really believe that it's better to trim hair that's not wet dry but what is dry it's not dried out so not wet and not heat blown out but if you did some kind of heat less stretch or something and trim that I think that that would be the healthiest day because the cuticles are like lower and it's not the more razor cuticles are while trimming the more kind of damage you might be causing and water raises the cuticles and heat raises the cuticles easier than like doing some kind of heat less stretch and then trimming like a three-step process wash one day heat less stretch the next day trim the third day it's easier than all that and it's less tiring and stressful and trying to trim on wash day because you know after you go through your whole wash they don't want to start trimming so I was like this sound good let me try it but not as easy as it looks not for those who just want to cut the bare minimum not for those who kind of want to at least try to cut to the straight line try to cut even and stuff like that it is easier to see your ends and to see the damage when it's drying so I was able to see it it was just going in a coil and I'm trying to cut it and just making my life difficult so I guess you should think before you leap so I left and then this is my final thoughts so hopefully I'll save other people unless you're really gonna twisting and that's your dream and you do it that way and it works for you but people who are like new to twisting new to trimming both right me probably should leave that method alone so next time I trim I'm gonna go back to the way I was doing it which is the way that really fine taught me how to do it I'm gonna go back to that I was thinking would I be convenient to just cut and then have you know you twist it with a nicely cut end but I didn't cut like her she just literally just took a coil and cut and then she separated it and then kind of cut each coil but she's really gonna twisting for one so her coils were perfect and for two she didn't seem as concerned in terms of how much she cuts so she didn't cut much but she cut just cutting bits of coil whereas I wanted to kind of stretch out the coil and see exactly what I was cutting so by the time I was done stretching out the end of my coil I kind of I would say ruin my twist out if it would have had a chance anyway but it did kind of mess up my twist out so me thinking oh I would just kind of just like her and have perfect twist just like her dreams versus reality kind of thing so I think for me for intro my twist all will come out better if I trim it wet or before and then coil it and just let it be at the end I don't regret it I mean I needed a trim I got a trim or someone's hair shares a sharp and you don't cut too much you can't really go wrong in terms of trimming and it's just hair and it'll grow back and all that so I don't like how I could regret it but it wasn't the best trimming approach for me so this is pretty much how much I cut and in terms of the average length of it it wasn't too bad either so like this is kind of in the range I'm going for when I trim which is like you know quarter inch to half inch I guess so overall I'm still gonna have a trim I'm just saying that it wasn't the easiest way to do it and my ends are probably all if I like all different situations going on in there right now so I'll definitely be going back to that next time so that's it let me know how you trim your hair let me let you trim it yourself and if you do how you trim your hair if you do like wet if you do like pulling out like this if you just freestyle if you dust off of twist like let me know what you guys do so I'll maybe have something new to try next time I don't know maybe I should stick to what works I don't know but you know I'm enjoying my journey and I hope you are too and I'll see you in the next one bye


And welcome all to another wonderful update at 2pm here at TFNN with me. That's David White. So what do we have right now? Well we certainly have a market that I think is doing what we talked about last week which is stumbling up. It'll have fits and starts throughout the week. But fund buying really begins on Wednesday in earnest, normally, why they can start buying now for funds. They generally want to make sure and jack the price up before those funds buy. So I like to think that we have the markup phase which really kind of started on Friday a little bit. The next couple of days will be the markup. And then they'll distribute as much stock into the 401k folk that have to buy or anybody buying funds. And that runs through pretty much on Friday. We'll have it. So you've got to have a pretty compelling case that this is the week that the market's going to drop the chalupa. But it is problematic. Things we're going to talk about on the show today. McDonald's is selling Krispy Kreme donuts. McDonald's hadn't done anything a long time to make me think that more people wanted to go there. But I bet they do. I used home sales this morning, kind of popped the market a bit. Everybody's trying to get in before the interest rates go even higher. Mr. Buffett is out slamming many people after a weekend when the president, Bernie Sanders and some of the other usual folk are complaining about and or trying to get rid of share buybacks. Buffett basically called them financial illiterates, which is pretty, pretty, the fighting words for Mr. Buffett. Tesla has had a good pot today on the numbers out of its out of its Germany factory, making about 4,000 cars a month. After the bill tonight, we've got oxy and work day after the bill. See you.


in the fantastic news department shared with us by I think Mark was the first one Matt was was on board Tony was there too there were many many many many many of you who shared with us this fantastic news that Google has backpedaled on their Google workspace G Suite my mandatory migration thing if you are willing to testify with them that you will use your legacy free G Suite account for personal use only then they will give you the legacy G Suite account for free forever or at least for free again we don't we can't say forever because you know we don't know when you're on the video for everyone that is not watching for the for the majority of the audience pilot be do you have a fish shake to share why do I ever because you know they I got it maybe I should have been more patient you know patients grasshopper right yeah the the fact remains that I I saw it coming I went ahead and put my billing data in there so the legacy would continue on as it went from there sure it turns out I already do have my own server that I lease for my personal website and that sort of thing so I'm kind of already paying for email yeah anyway in there so I migrated out of the Google workspace G Suite whatever whatever other name they've given it over the years and migrated all of that back over to my my server so it's now managing my email if anybody knows a good divorce attorney at please let me know because that's they'll maybe coming no mama was not real happy with with the hiccups to go along with transferring mail servers no matter what you do or how you do it the fact is you know that as you pointed out at one point Dave three four days later there's still an occasional email hitting that the old that Google IMAP server well and we presume that it was probably just a cash DNS yeah that was pointed in that direction but that was painful I have swapped it over and I'm gonna remain in now that I can go back for free I think I'm just gonna leave you're not gonna do it yeah well yeah what I would recommend is that you go in and tell like like do the jump back to free which you can do if if you haven't so so to catch everybody I want it free right yeah you can now go into your Google either your G Suite account that you haven't migrated which you need to do something about before the end of this month so you've got about a week but by June 1st they will auto migrate you over unless you go in and and do this attestation that you want to keep the free account and that you're using it for personal and then it and then it will just put you on that but even if you had already migrated to the will be paid in the future account because they were they give everybody four months free from when you migrate anyway just because well because they wanted to hedge their bets I think and try to figure this out but once you if you've done that you can undo it you can go in and change back to to that we'll put a link in the show notes that sort of walks through a few of these things but but yeah it's back to free