Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I want to thank those of you who have braved the elements and come out this afternoon. I'd also like to thank those who are joining us online. One of the advantages, obviously, of webcasting is that people who don't want to get stuck in evening rush hour traffic are still able to join us, and we're very grateful for that. One of the things about having a CEO who is from South Dakota is that the threat of a little snow does not deter one from continuing with scheduled events, and therefore we are certainly happy to have you join us here today. A couple of administrative comments. One is I would ask those here in the audience to make sure you've silenced your cell phones that actually causes me to realize I have not done so. So I will do that as well right now, and that would be a little helpful. Secondly, those of you who have joined us on the web, there are available for download PDF file of the chart so that you can follow along. Because this is a bit of a new exercise for us having a simultaneous live event and webcast, we want to encourage those of you who are watching. Let us know if you're online. You can send us your comments. You can send us your questions. We'll be able to pick them up as part of the process here so that when we get to the question period, if you send them to by email, you'll see my email address on the front of the very first chart and also on the questions chart. It's D-B-E-R-T-E-A-U at c-s-i-s dot o-r-g, so you're welcome to send questions along as we get to the questions period. We're really grateful for the opportunity to do what, for us, is a bit of a branching out in terms of our analysis. Many of you know that for years, we've done an analysis and a report updated each year basically on professional services contracting across the U.S. federal government. Last year, when we did our professional services report and updated it in November, we pronounced that we were going to move forward looking agency by agency. And what we've done, this is the first in what we hope will be a series of agency-specific reports. But rather than just look specifically only at services contracting, what we've done is we step back and look at all contract spending first at the Department of Defense level. We expect to have a follow-on events on the Department of Homeland Security, on the Department of Energy, on NASA, and on all of the agencies that have a substantial amount of government contract spending. So this is a bit of a new exercise for us. We wanted to release it before the DOD budget came out. At the time that we set our schedule, we thought that would be next week. Turns out now it's going to be a couple of weeks later than that. But we think it's still timely. But particularly since it is a new exercise for us, we're really eager to get your input and your comments and your reactions. Joining me on the stage here today is Guy Ben Ari. He is the Deputy Director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group. I'm David Burto. I'm the Director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group here at CSIS. With that, I'm going to click to the next chart and turn it over to Guy for a couple of comments. Thanks, David. Welcome, everybody. Just a few quick notes on methodology. As David mentioned, this effort grew out of our ongoing work on the professional services industrial-based and professional services contracting across the federal government. We continue to use the Federal Procurement Data System, FPDS, as our primary source of the data. And most of the charts that you'll see in this presentation use FPDS data as the main source. We've noted it in the footnote if there are other sources that we've used. Note that all dollar figures are in constant $2009. And really the last comment I'll make at this point is that the hard data for all of the charts that you'll see in this presentation will be also available online. So you're welcome to, at your own leisure, go ahead and play around with that. It's a lot of fun. One of the things that we do intend to do is to post an updated version of this presentation online with written commentary in lieu of an actual written report. We do have the handout here today, but we expect to refine those charts and to add some additional data to them as we go along. We look, first of all, at the total amount of DOD contract spending as a percentage of total DOD funding. Our data here, there's a little bit of a lag time in terms of these are actual outlays and there have been some lags because of getting the outlay data from supplementals into the data. So there's a little bit of an update that we expect to do for the total for DOD spending, but it does not affect the actual percentage. What you see from the jagged line across the top of the chart here is that total DOD contract spending while it was down had a spike for Desert Storm in 1991 and was down around the 50% level through the early 1990s, but really beginning in the mid-90s all the way up to today has been fairly flat at around 60% of total DOD budgets. And so while the budget has gone up dramatically since 2001, the percentage of spending of DOD budget spending on contracts has stayed relatively flat over that entire period of time, which is actually a bit of a surprise to us because we actually thought contract spending would have gone up at a higher rate than total DOD funding and it really basically did not. Our presentation is organized according to several different categories. We've broken it down into three pieces, products, services, and R&D. Now, in our services contracts report, we include R&D as part of services. That's because the federal procurement data system includes R&D as a service. But we break it out separately for purposes of this category today. In addition, we will give you spending by DOD component, Army, Navy, Air Force, and other DOD. I would note that we can't break out supplemental. Supplementals are not separately classified in the federal procurement data system. And so we haven't broken those out separately here as well. So first we look at DOD contract spending for products. What you have on this chart or along the bottom is you have the dollar totals with the billions on the left. So it gets up, it starts out at a little under $100 billion in 1990, increases to nearly $200 billion by FY08 and a slight drop off after that. On the right, you have the percentages. We have Microsoft to thank for setting the percentages in increments of seven. We will fix that in a subsequent chart. But basically the 49% line is roughly at the 50% level. What you see is a slight decline in spending for contracts through the 1990s, and then an increase in spending for contracts since 2001. And just a quick note on the downturn you're seeing in 09. We are presuming that that's a function of the FPDS data being updated relatively slowly. We've seen that in previous years as well. Where it takes a good year or two, sometimes more for the complete amounts and to be updated in the online version. Which is the one that we're working off of. So we expect the 09 levels to actually be a little higher than you're showing in this chart. Then we look at contract spending by services. This is chart eight. You can see increases in the early 1990s to a level that's generally right below the 40% or right around the 40% level since the mid 90s on up to today. Sorry, we're still on. One, six. There we go. Now the click actually worked. This is chart six, spending for services. Again, an increase in the early 90s to a relatively stable level at around the 40, 42% level since the mid 90s. And just another quick methodology comment. Unlike the professional services report that we've been churning out, services here does not include R&D or most of R&D. It does include R&D management, which you can break out in FPDS. So that's under services. The rest of R&D is in the next chart. And there is our R&D chart. This is really kind of our first big surprise in our data here. Typically, when the defense budget increases, the amount that goes to research and development also increases. Historically, that's been the case since the end of World War II. In this case though, despite the increase, the percentage that's gone to R&D has actually declined over the last decade. I would note that this is R&D dollars as reported again in the federal procurement data system. We have not tracked this back against actual appropriated dollars for R&D, although we think that on a percentage basis, that trend is probably the same. So now we lump the three together. Category in percentage terms, what you see is the increase in services contracts, this is chart eight in the 1990s, and the relative stability since then. And same with products. And two interesting questions here for us. One was, had it not been for OIF, OEF, the two wars starting in 01, 02, 03, would the trend of the decrease in products have continued, and would the spike that we've seen in services have been as high as it has been? And the second question, of course, is will these trends continue into the future years as we are looking at either flat or declining even defense budgets? And we'll come back to that question when we look at spending by Army, Navy, and Air Force, each of the DOD components. So we'll start by looking at the total contract spending by entity. This is a color-coded chart, chart nine, that starts basically the top is the other DOD, and then we have the, I have a non-color-coded piece in front of me, so I'm going to have to work at Air Force, Navy, and Army at the bottom. Substantial increase in all entities, all components of DOD, clearly tied to both Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s. And just a note on the other category, the top bar on the chart here, that the growth there is primarily in the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA, and some Missile Defense Agency. Now we'll look at spending on products by component, by entity. This is a replacement chart. For those of you who have the paper copy of the charts here, there's a new chart 10, which you should have picked up on the outside and have to replace the one that you have there. Here again, it's useful to look at the growth rates. What you have, though, is a dramatic difference, a decline in the 1990s in terms of total spending on products by contract, and then a dramatic increase since 2001. The combined annual growth rate over the 20-year period, 1990 to 2009, is a little bit under 4% for all of DOD. But over the last 11 years, it's been over 10% per year annual growth rate in contracts spending on products. And it's worth noting that the majority of growth in DOD and products has been in Army and other, primarily again driven by DLA. And again, we're not sure if we would expect that to continue. Now we'll look at the spending on services by entity. Here again, you have growth, but you'll notice there was not the dip in the 1990s. And so from a growth rate point of view, it's been a little bit different. You actually have a 20-year growth rate of about 6.5% per year and a 11-year growth rate of only about 9%. So the difference, if you will, in the growth rate over the post-911 period is dramatically less of an increase in services spending than it was in spending for products. Whoops. Now we'll look at R&D by component. This is chart 12. Pardon me as my pages are stuck together here. Again, note that there's been little increase in R&D despite the dramatic increase in the DOD budget. Across the board, 4% for Army over the 20-year period, 3.5% Navy, 2% for Air Force. This is historically unprecedented. This next chart is really a repetition of the earlier one you saw on page 9. But it's just to bring you back to the complete picture of the breakdown of contract spending by the various services and by way of also transitioning to look at the individual services now in the coming charts. So first we'll look at Army contract spending from 1990 to 2009. This is chart 14. You can see this is really skyrocketed. As a percent of total DOD contract spending, the Army was only 23% in 1990. It had grown to 40% of total DOD contracts by 2008. That's an 11-year growth rate since 1999 of over 13% per year in Army contract spending. And it's really probably almost entirely attributable to the wars that we've been fighting since 01-02. What I'd also quickly note is that for the next version of this report, we'll have the breakdowns for each of the services into product services and R&D as well. We'll not have that yet in these charts. Now we look at Navy contract spending. This you have almost the mirror image reverse of the Army. The Navy has clearly declined substantially from nearly 40% in 1990 to 25% over the last half decade. And you really wonder if the United States Marine Corps had not been included in the Navy numbers, if these numbers had been even lower, if the declining trend had been even sharper. Then we have the Air Force contract spending. Again, this is down as is the Navy. And in fact, in percentage terms, the last couple of years, the Air Force has been at an all-time low since the Air Force was created in 1947. But there's hope, or seems to me, because the Air Force is the only service that's seeing an increase in its numbers from 08 to 09. So then we decided to put the three together and to add the percentage for other. So we've got all three services together, Army, Navy, Air Force, and then we have the other DOD portion. This is really kind of our second big surprise, if you will. There's a historical change, unprecedented. The Air Force in 2008 actually fell to fourth place behind the fourth estate as we call the defense agencies inside DOD. And it remained there in 09. This has never happened before. And I was actually astonished when we rolled this chart up. It's worth calling almost a press conference just to point this out. Of course, it happened two years ago, almost three years ago now, and we're only just now capturing it because that's how long it takes to get the data. Sorry, we didn't skip forward. There you have it. This is chart 17. So I need to be clicking my button and checking to make sure that I've succeeded. So now you see DOD other, the orange line actually passed the Air Force in 08 and remains above it in 09. Unprecedented. And next few charts you're going to see, we're moving away from the services and looking specifically at different types of contracts. So first we have data by competition, by type of competitive award in terms of total DOD contract spending. And a few methodological notes here. First of all, on the top right-hand side of the legend, unlabeled is both the contracts there are actually unlabeled in FPDS or that we picked out as being erroneously labeled. For example, if it's designated as a competed contract and there are zero bidders, or if it's designated as a non-competed and there are five bidders. What's encouraging to see is that there's actually been a decrease in the number of unlabeled contractors, contracts which is telling us that the data in FPDS, at least on competition, is improving. One other quick note is that this is one of the charts where our data only goes back to 1999 as opposed to 1990 just because for some categories, we were uncomfortable with some of the older numbers and so kept it to a shorter timeframe. But for the sake of confidence in the data. We also picked 1999 as a starting point because that was the significant year of expenditures on Y2K which from the services contract in point of view was a big deal, less so looking back in history. It's worth noting that though both over the 11-year period covered by this chart and the last five-year period, if we look at it, the percentage growth in competitively awarded contracts exceeds the growth in non-competitively awarded contracts. And so what you're seeing is an increase in the successful application of competition across DOD contracts pending. Then we looked at the data for all of DOD by what we call funding mechanism and this is basically the cost basis of the contract whether it's fixed price, whether it's cost reimbursable, whether it's time and materials, whether it's a combination of multiple types of contract or whether it is that wonderful category unlabeled or insufficiently labeled if you will. What we see is that fixed price contracting has been increasing faster than cost-based contracting including TNM over that time period. What you also see here is what for us at least is a somewhat troubling emergence of the combination contract somewhere around 05. That category has seen an immense growth. The combined annual growth rate is actually something like 140% over a five-year period and we believe that this is something that places like OMB, OFPP should really start paying some attention to. We've noticed this trend in the services report and what combination basically means is there's some elements of fixed price and some elements of cost-based in the contract. We can't tell from the data what percentage is and how much is which. And if you'll notice on the chart, if you look at the top of the 05 column there, the fifth one from the right-hand side, you'll see that little one sitting off to the side, that's $1 billion worth of combination contracts in FY05. By FY09, it had grown to $45 billion. And this is troubling us because you can't tell what's inside this, we can't break it down. And so we think a little effort needs to be put onto this. As I said, we had noted this trend in our services report in November but we did not know that it had spilled over into products as well. David, do you have a comment quickly as the one time? Exactly. So my comment that says we're increasing fixed price, if this combination, if 40 of that 45 billion is cost-based and only five is fixed price, then it may undermine my comment that it looks like we're doing better on the fixed price basis. So it's really a question of it makes it way too difficult for us to discern any trend here. This is a particular concern and if you go back to President Obama's March 2009 guidance to the departments, it says you need to increase the amount of work you do to compete, you need to increase the amount of contracts that you put out under fixed price contracting and the way we're going to measure how well you're doing agency by agency is using the federal procurement data system. So now if in fact we're using the federal procurement data system and you can't tell, then how are you gonna evaluate performance? That's really our focus on this question. It's not just that we're curious, we actually think that the government is as well and it ought to know the answer. Then we look at total DOD contract spending by contract vehicle and this is really the type of vehicle, indefinite delivery vehicles, purchase orders, or definitive contracts. We would note that here as in elsewhere, DOD appears to have been responding positively to the policy guidance that's been put out both within DOD and across the federal government. There's a higher increase in the percentage of defendatized contracts than in others and that has been again part of the OMB guidance. And so you see signs here, the DOD is in fact successfully following the guidance that's been put out. And just quickly to note that in this chart, just for the sake of being able to actually read it, we've dropped the unlabeled category. It's relatively insignificant, but worth noting that it's never the less there are unlabeled contracts in this category as well. Our next category of charts we're now in chart 21 is the top 20 contractors in DOD. Here we compare 1999 and that we derived actually from the DD350 forms rather than FPDS because it hadn't broken it out yet by then. And in 2009, which again is the last year for which we have current data. It's interesting you have the same top five in 1999 as you do in 2009. The order has changed a little bit, but it is just the same top five. What's also interesting here is that the share of the top five between 1990 and 2009 dropped slightly, went down from 29% of overall contract to 27%. The top 20 share grew by just a little bit again, 41 to 43%. So really there might actually not be very real effects of vertical integration if you're going by this data because all the big guys are pretty much maintaining their share of the total pie. One big difference though that you can see between 1999 and 2009. In 1999, two of the top 20 companies were healthcare companies. You see Humana at number 16, $780 million a year in contracts, Anthem at number 20, $650 million a year in total DOD contracts. Look over in the 2009 column, you now see Humana up at number 13, $3.4 billion. You see HealthNet at number 16, $2.8 billion, and you see TriWest Healthcare at number 17, $2.7 billion. What you have is three companies in 2009. Combine those three, they add up to $9 billion. They would be number six on the list. This is the growth in DOD healthcare expenses shown very dramatically from a contract's point of view. We now break those top 20 down by products, by services, and by R&D. So first, here's the products category. This is chart 22. There's a small change in the top five. United Technologies is gone as number five. They've now dropped down to seven. Northrop moved from number six up to number five. Of course, between 1999 and 2000, Northrop required Lytton, which had been number eight on the list on the left-hand side. They also acquired Avondale, which had been number 13 on the list on the left-hand side. They've announced, of course, that they're gonna divest themselves of those. So when we see this chart in a couple of years, it will have changed again. You also see number eight in 2009, BAE Systems. BAE, of course, acquired a couple of the top 20 that were in the 1999 list, United Defense, and Stuart and Stevenson. So you've got some changes there that have been as much by mergers and acquisitions as by growth in each of the companies. And in terms again of the share of the top five and the top 20 of overall spending, here the trend is actually downward for both categories. The top five are down 6%. The top 20 are down just a little bit, around about 1%. But again, this is products and there are two wars going on and there are a lot of other players involved in this business. Speaking of which, you can see the effects of those two wars, probably in the makeup of the 09 list, where you've got three oil companies represented, Shell, Oil, BP, and Bahrain Petroleum. And you see some companies, some new companies in the ground vehicles sector. McAndrew's Forbes Holdings actually owns A&M General, BAE Systems, of course. And so again, the results of several years' worth of two major wars are clear in this chart as well. But the idea, and we heard this a lot last week in a series of events around town on the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower's farewell speech, the idea that somehow the top defense contractors are gaining a larger and larger share of the market. And what our research has shown is in fact that's not the case, that it's been stable and in the area of products actually declining in terms of percentage fairly dramatically. So the consolidation of industry is not showing up in the percentage increase of total contract dollars by those top contractors. We see a different story in services contracting between 1999 and 2009. Now I'm on chart 23. Big movement in the top five. In fact, healthcare impact clearly is visible. Companies number five, eight, and 11 in 2009 are healthcare companies. And so three of the top 11 services contractors for DOD are in the healthcare business. And it's really in the share of the top 20 of overall spending that you see the real surge in some of the smaller and medium sized companies. The share of top 20 is up from 29 to 36% between 99 and 09, while the share of the top five has remained pretty much flat at around 15%. Then we look at R&D, which is chart 24. Here the top four are not only the same, they're in the same order. And company number five in 1999 was bought by company number three. And so in many ways that distribution is not changed much dramatically. On the other hand, the shares of the top five and top 20 of overall spending have increased. And this is the R&D category is the one category where we've seen that happen. The share of the top five goes from 50% to 56% of overall spending and the share of the top 20 from 71 to 76%. So 20 companies are doing three quarters worth of work of the work in R&D for DOD. All right. It's worth noting though that five of those top 20 are either non-profits or federally funded R&D centers. And so they're not really part of the same corporate industrial complex that's reflected on the other charts that includes obviously MIT Aerospace Corporation, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, MITRE and Battelle. We then look, as we did for our services contracting, at the shares of contract spending and the total dollars of contract spending divided up by size of company, if you will. So we have, this is total contract spending by contractor size. 1999 is the top bar on chart 25 and 2009 is the bottom bar for each. Large contractors, medium-sized contractors and small contractors. The largest in terms of annual growth rate is for large, which grew at an average annual rate of 11%. Small businesses, and this is really a success story in terms of the government's policy of set-asides for small business, has grown at an average rate of 10% per year for DOD over that same 11-year period. Just a quick, again, methodological note. We discussed for quite a while what the threshold for a large company should be. For both this report and for our November 2010 professional services report, we increased that threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion because we felt that it was no longer, being a $1 billion company, as incredible as that might sound, is not good enough anymore to be considered a big or large player in the DOD environment. However, after we made that change, we looked to see how many companies or how much business the companies were doing that were in the $1 billion to $3 billion range. And this is annual revenue, by the way. And there's only $17 billion worth of contracts going out to the companies in that category. So that change in terms of share of the pie was not significant. This has been of interest to us because there's a substantial policy question of is a combination of growth in the large companies and growth in small business set aside, putting a squeeze on the middle tier companies. And certainly for those folks who work for those companies, they feel that squeeze. What the data show is that there is a bit of a squeeze, but there's still an awful lot of growth inside that area as well. We see the same thing when we look on a products level. Now I'm on chart 26, where in fact large contractors have a substantial, by far the biggest portion of total contract spending for products. Medium contractors, more and small businesses, the least of the amount. In terms of average annual growth rate though, the mediums are actually taking a smaller and smaller portion each year. They've been growing at an average annual rate of about 7.7%, whereas both small business and large are growing at over 11% per year. So again, there is a little bit of a squeeze on here. It's not dramatic, there's still room for growth, but the shares are diminishing for medium-sized contractors. Then we look at the same question in services. And we see that medium is much bigger in services in terms of total dollars, 64 billion for large companies, 59.5 billion in 2009 for medium-sized companies. So you can see that the mediums are there, but. And in fact, they had a larger share of the overall pie in 99 than did the large companies, but that trend reversed itself in 2009. So here you are seeing the squeeze on the, again on the middle-tier companies. Small business obviously is still growing. They grew at an average rate in the services business of 9.3% large contractors at 11.6%. And then for R&D, here the large companies obviously dominate, they were dominating in 1999, they're still dominating today. This is consistent with the trend that says over half of the R&D dollars are in the top five companies and three-fourths of R&D dollars are in the top 20 companies. So this has been a quick run through a lot of data. And you all have been very patient flipping through these charts with us, if you will. We've found some surprises in here, some areas where the surprise was not what had happened but what hadn't happened, that in fact, the percentage for instance of products and services had been fairly stable over the last 12 to 15 years. Surprises like the Air Force actually spending fewer dollars under contract over the last two years than the fourth estate in DOD. So by and large, we're gonna continue to look at these data, we're gonna continue to break them out, we'll do them by other agencies as well, as I mentioned. So at this point, I'd like to throw the floor open for comments and questions. I believe we have folks, as you all know, our procedure is you raise your hand, I will recognize you and you wait for the microphone. When you get the mic, you can stand up, speak into the mic, identify yourself, your affiliation and make your comment or ask your question. I'll also pull out my blackberry, those of you who wanna email questions from the web will attempt to answer those as well. So any questions from the floor? Any comments or questions from the floor? Here's one over here on the right, if you will. Thank you, this is Amy Strauss from the Avacent Group. I have two quick questions, if you'll permit. One on slide 19, do you have this data by just the services market? And what do you think that chart would look like? For professional services, we do. It's in our report that was released in November. For just DoD? I believe that we have data. We have the data, I'm not sure we've posted it and I think it's a legitimate question and it's worth laying out. I don't know if we put it in our report by DoD but when we do the final rollup of this, we'll put it out by component. My second question is on the following page where you have an interesting breakout of the spending by contract vehicle. I wondered if you included contract money that was flowing through GSA, although going to DoD is the ultimate end user and how that might affect this breakout. Thank you. That's a fascinating question. We would love to get at that. Unfortunately, the data entry in the Federal Procurement Data System doesn't give us the kind of precision.  I'd love to know the answer to that question. My suspicion is it's down but I can't verify that. Other questions from the floor? And I have no questions from the audience although I have some in the, aha, here we go. At the risk of shutting down, Mr. Finnelli. Thank you very much, Frank Finnelli from the Carlaw Group. As you're looking at these size categories, are you differentiating this just from DoD Prime contract revenue or have you done any cuts where you look at the total revenue of the company or where you try to integrate subcontract value as well? Those are great questions as well and shows the limits of the data we have. We do look at size of company as well as just size of DoD contracts and so in fact, if your total DoD contracts is under the three billion but the size of the company is over three billion, you're in the category of large for purposes of our display here. Same with medium so that it isn't, the size isn't driven by the total DoD contract dollars or total government contract dollars but by actual total revenue of the company as best we can determine. Some companies that's a little harder than others. We would love to be able to get at subcontract data and to be able to roll those up. So far that's generally not publicly available. There's some early beginnings on usaspending.gov of subcontractor data and we're really excited about this. You know, and this is a great world to live in where you get excited about access, public access to subcontract data but it's the world we live in and we're eager to see that mature over time but I think it'll be a while before we get, before we can really draw any conclusions from it. Thanks for pointing those both out. But what we're also doing for the large companies is rolling up all the daughter companies. So we'll go by Dunn's numbers and if a company is owned by another company, that company's data will be subsumed in the larger company's data. And again, occasionally we lag actual mergers and acquisitions and so we welcome companies who notice that we've got them incorrectly displayed here and will help us fix that problem. I think we had a couple more questions in the front here. Hang on, here comes the mic, if you don't mind. Thanks. Slide 12, I'd just like to go to R&D since that's one of my favorites having worked that issue about 30 years in this town. If you look at the numbers, late 08 and 09 and total those up, they look like they're about in the mid-40s. I mean, we know the 11 budget is 76 billion for R&D and was probably in the mid to high 60s in 08 and 09. So what I'm trying to get a sense of and Guy, I think you said RDT&E management, you've put in services. Yes. Okay, would that involve like six, five defense-wide mission support activities? Yes, exactly. Predominantly. Or were there other RDT&E activities that would be put into services? Well, the way FPDS breaks it down is not by the six, one to six, five labeling. There's just a separate R&D specific code for R&D management and that's what we'll separate out from the overall R&D. I'm just trying to understand what their definition is. And I would also note, by the way, the speaker is Wayne Schroeder from Lockheed Martin. Wayne, I would note that what this does not capture is government expenditures out of the R&D account government employees and facilities and operations as well. This is only contract dollars. And so for instance, the DOD labs, the DOD labs, those salaries would be paid in services as opposed to... My assumption based upon other data is that that portion has actually grown more than the contract portion of R&D. So there's some masking, if you will, but the extent to which you believe actual R&D is done by the companies rather than the government in its own labs, this reflects a flattening of that from a pure contract point of view. And I think it's a concern because in the past, we've lived off the benefits of R&D that get spent when we have a buildup and we reap the benefits of those in the drawdown because that's when you get to start applying the R&D. We have not invested in R&D in the last decade to the same ratios that we've done in the past when we've had a growing budget. And so that puts at risk the potential for reaping the benefits of that in a downturn. My only observation, David, would be if the actual spending on the R&D teeny is in the 40s, the mid 40s, and the R&D teeny in appropriation is in the high 60s, 70s, that's like a two to one ratio that's a lot of management going in to the activity. And of course, some of you will recall that when we did our services report in November, we noted that the single largest services contract in the government was the Joint Strike Fighter, which in many ways is obviously not really a services contract. So we've got some anomalies there, if you will, in terms of the way the categorizations get laid out. And we try to take account of those. Here's another question on the front here. It's August Cole, I'm a writer. The total contract value for the top five contractors in 2009 has obviously risen with the budget, but it looks like the gulf between, let's say the fifth and the sixth has also spread. So that delta's big compared to 1999. Is that a policy issue? If you create a position where the super prime firms are essentially, there's a gulf between them and the rest of the industry. I think that's a great question. And I think one of the answers to that question comes in the back of our services contracting report we have what we refer to as the pitchfork charts, which basically takes the companies in 1995, dozens and dozens of them, rolls them forward to the companies of today, much smaller number. I think we'd have to go back and look at the revenue, if you will, contract revenue of those subsidiary companies that have been bought up by the larger companies to see whether or not it's accentuated that breakpoint beyond what you would consider to be a naturally distributed set of data. And in fact, whether or not there's an incentive for the guys at the top in order to stay at the top, they've got to continue buying up the ones underneath. And I think that's a policy issue. I'm not aware though of any specific guidance from DOD that would produce that outcome. I think it's more a question of the overall dynamics of the market and what those companies at the top have to do to be able to stay there. That's my suspicion. Do you agree? I agree. Yeah, but I think that's worth taking a look at. Thank you. That's another good point. Well, given that we have another question over here, I was going to make some kind of spurious. Just very briefly, Terry Murphy, also with CSIS. Picking up your point about the Navy Marine Corps split, or whatever you speculative, of course, what could you, I was in Australia last summer, and Australia Press was quite filled with concern about the perceived diminution of the Navy force, the Navy presence in the Western Pacific. And we've just had the Chinese president here. Do you have any, you did express concern about that, and I wonder whether you'd like to just expand on that. Thank you, Terry. We noted that the trend in Navy contract dollars as a percent of total DOD was almost the mirror reverse of the Army from a high of just below 40% in 1990. To about 25% in the second half of this past decade. I think that the total dollars, though, if you look at the Navy, have actually grown up, had gone up over that period of time as well. And they've had a growth rate, I don't have the percentage right in front of me, of about 7% in the last 10 years. And so the Navy by no means is, for purposes of contract dollars, going down. They're just not going up at the same rate as the Army and the other DOD. So I think it's premature to draw a conclusion about what that would mean over the long run, notwithstanding the concern of the Australians, which I think is a little bit different question. One of the issues that you mask in data like this is actually what are you getting for the dollars. Because what we can track is what you're spending them on by category, by service, by type of contract, et cetera. Being able to break down from that and look at what you get for them is a whole different question. That's an analytical question that's probably beyond the scope of this report, but it's obviously the real reason why you do it in the first place. And I think that's your point. So as soon as we figure out how to track actual outcomes back to contracts, we'll have a much larger audience and a much longer, more detailed report. So I look forward to that day. We'll continue to work on that. I want to thank you all for coming. The National Weather Service says that commuting will be hazardous this afternoon. So I'll let you guys go early because the last thing I want to do is be responsible for putting you in a hazardous situation. I want to also thank those who are online for having joined us this afternoon. We will be posting an updated version of this report with commentary and analysis, as well as just to charts themselves and make sure that you get them, especially if, since you let us know, those of you who are here, those of you who are online, we'll make sure you get them if you let us know that you were watching. So thank you all very much and have a pleasant afternoon and evening.


Like what is actually scary about that? Today we're gonna talk about how to stop focusing on your fear so that you can actually start getting stuff done and move into the direction that you want. And I've got a really great story around this. So this past weekend I was at an event that I am a mastermind that I'm a part of. And there's about 80 of us in this mastermind. And the speaker who was on stage was Mike Tyson this weekend. And it was cool to see Mike Tyson talk because one of the questions that was asked of him is somebody said, hey, Mike, when you were about to go into the ring and fight some of these people, we're talking about, Mike Tyson fought some of the most dangerous people alive.  Did you ever feel fear when you were about to walk into the ring? Mike Tyson was super honest. And he said, I am literally a terrified person, like my entire life. I'm afraid all the time. And he said, when I would find out, before I would find out who I was about to fight, I'd be terrified of who that could possibly be. As soon as I'd find out who the person was that I was fighting, I would be terrified to fight that person. For the six months up until the point where I stepped in the ring and I was training every day, every night, every day, every night, the whole time I was training, I was terrified just thinking about this person and what we were gonna do in the ring. Almost every night I had trouble sleeping because I was so afraid of this person who I was going to step in the ring with. I was terrified the night of the fight. I was terrified walking in to the ring. And the only time that I wasn't terrified is as soon as the guy said, okay, fight. And at that point in time, I just kind of went on to autopilot. And it was cool to see because what he said was super important. He said, I felt fear all the time. But the one thing that I didn't do was doubt myself. Let me say that again. But I felt fear all of the time. But the one thing that I didn't do was doubt myself. And the reason why I didn't doubt myself was because I know that there are very few people in this world who put more action into becoming the greatest they could possibly be than myself. My level of preparation was beyond what other people would put into it. And you start to think about that and you realize this is a guy whose job was to go in and fight and try to knock people out while they were trying to knock him out. He felt fear his entire career. And then you think about the fact that we feel fear all the time. And we think that there's something wrong with that. We think that that fear is bad. And then because of the fear, we don't do what it is that we're supposed to do. And it holds us back from taking the action that we need to, but it also holds us back from, if we don't take the action, it holds us back from not having the life that we truly deserve. But he was overprepared. The thing that was great about it is he didn't doubt himself because of the fact that he took so much action. Another thing that reminds me of, I remember hearing a story that I heard from Jeff Hoffman, who is the founder of PriceLine.com. About five years ago, I interviewed him. And he was talking about how he was really good friends with Evander Holyfield, who just so happened to get his ear bitten off by Mike Tyson. But he was friends with him and he remembers he was going through this workout. Then the workout had 300 sets. And it was this crazy, intense workout that like no human could do. He had 300 sets of this workout. And he was sitting there counting them for Evander Holyfield as he was almost done. And he finished one of the last sets and he said, hey, Evander Holyfield comes up to me and goes, hey, was that 300 or was that 299? Jeff Hoffman goes, oh, I think it was 300. And he looks at him and he goes, was it 300 or was it 299? And he said, man, I think it was 300. And he looked at him in the face and he said, listen to me, was it 300 or was it 299? And he goes, I don't know Evander, what does it really matter? I think it was 300. And he said, what is it? And he said, he got really looked him dead in the eyes and terrified him. And he goes, the difference between 299 and 300 is the difference between everybody else in the world and the heavyweight champion of the world. That's the difference between 299 and 300. And then he went and did an entire other set. And Jeff Hoffman said at that point, he finally understood what made him great because they put in so much action that they don't doubt themselves. Another example of this, which is another fighter, there's so many different fighters that I have these great stories on that reminds me of, is I have a podcast episode coming out in the next few months with George St. Pierre, who's considered one of the top five UFC fighters. George St. Pierre is one of like the sweetest, most humble, kindest guys. It was amazing to talk to him, he's just so humble. And he hates fighting. He doesn't like fighting, but he happens to be one of the best fighters that has ever lived. He just happened to be really good at it. And it was something that could make him a lot of money and get him out of the place that he was in. He just saw it as a way to make money. And he said he hated fighting, terrified him all of the time. He was so scared of fighting all the time. But the thing that he wasn't scared of was the fact that he had put so much work into himself and he had such great abilities because of all of the work that he put into himself. And he didn't doubt himself. And when he said, his lack of doubt came from over-preparation. His lack of doubt came from over-preparation. And he said that he would be terrified as soon as he found out who he was fighting, the whole time for the two, three, four, five months that he was in training camp, he would be terrified for the entire time that he's sitting out there and thinking about and trying to fall asleep and going to dinner. He said like in dinner, in the middle of dinner, he'd be thinking about fighting and thinking about fighting. He'd have to, he was just terrified the entire time. And he was terrified up until the one point where it was about to be his time to fight. He would go to the mirror. He would look at himself in the mirror and he would say to himself, you're better than this guy. You're the best fighter that's out there. You're better than this guy. You're the best fighter that's out there. And he would talk to himself in the mirror and what made his fear disappear was him building himself up and talking about how amazing he was. And he said that he would then put on a mask he imagined where his name is George St. Pierre. After talking to himself, he would call himself GSP. It was like his alter ego. He would pretend that he was somebody. He would pretend that he was this killer, this guy who was not afraid of anything, who had no doubt, who had no fear, none of those things. And so he literally would step into being a different person and he would be that person the entire rest of the night. That's when he said he would go on autopilot because he was so overprepared. His body knew better than his mind for what to do in all of these fights. So why do we say this?  And the beautiful thing about them is that their fear is not like our fear. Like if you have the fear of public speaking, what's the worst that could happen?  You might screw up a few lines.  Like the fact that the chance of that happening is not really gonna happen, but what's gonna happen? You could stumble on a few lines, you could mess up. Some people could see it and see you screw up.   Our fear, if you really think about the fears that are holding you back from everything that you want in this world. Like if I ask you, what is your number one fear that's holding you back? And I don't mean like spiders or heights. I mean like, what is your fear that's holding you back from doing what is what you want? It's not really that big of a deal. And when you look at it that way, it's like, oh yeah, I'm really just afraid of what other people might say about me. Am I gonna die if other people say things about me? No, if my parents don't approve of the degree that I get, am I going to die? No. And you look at all these things, you're like none of these things that I actually fear around are scary. I'm making them to be these massive, scary things. I'm making mountains out of molehills. It's like they're not a big deal, but we make them to be so big in our mind. These guys are literally going into a place of potential death and they're still taking action to get themselves there. You're not going into a place of potential death. You're possibly, you know, if we talk to go back to public speaking, what are you doing? You're getting on a stage and talking in front of people. There shouldn't be that much fear if you really break it down to its simplest forms. To its simplest forms, here's what's happening. Your physical body is going onto a platform that's a little bit above other people. Maybe those people are standing up, maybe they're sitting down, maybe they're taking notes, but your physical body is raised a little bit higher than other people's physical body.  At its simplest form, that is all that you're doing. What is actually scary about that?  Is that really terrifying? It's not. And when you break it down, it's almost comical the things that we're quote unquote afraid of, the things that we have fear over. So when you think about this, how do I make it easier on myself if public speaking is the example that I want to get? The two biggest fears in the world, number one is public speaking, number two is death. Jerry Seinfeld has a joker on that says people would rather be inside of the box than giving the eulogy at a funeral. When you think about it that way, what can I do to make sure that there's less fear but absolutely no doubt in my mind when I'm going to go out there? The best way for you to be, if public speaking is the thing that we're going off of, the best way for you to be the best public speaking of the best presentation is to be overprepared for every single thing. For you to know your subject, the best that you possibly can.  You will still feel it but it doesn't matter because I'm not doubting myself. I'm so overprepared, I'm so ready to go into it and I know what it is that I'm going to do that the fear is there but it doesn't really matter. And one of the things that Mike Tyson said was amazing is that fear is just a natural human emotion. That's it. You're gonna feel fear the same way that you feel tired sometimes, the same way that you feel excited sometimes, the same way that you feel happy, the same way that you feel sad. But when you're happy about something, you don't go, oh my God, I'm happy, I can't jump onto this stage and do public speaking. No, it's just a natural human emotion. What he said is that the beautiful thing about fear is it allows us the strength to build up courage because you can't have any courage unless there's some sort of fear in front of you. If I were to walk up to any person and say, hey, would you like to be seen as a person with courage? Would you like to be seen as somebody who is courageous to other people? Everyone would be like, absolutely, because courage is a beautiful emotion, it's a beautiful trait to have. You can't have courage in the absence of fear. Courage can only be built when you have fear that's around you. So you have to think of that, same way that you can't grow your muscles unless you go in and lift heavier weights. You can't have courage and be more courageous and more courageous unless you are in the presence of fear often that you're working through all of the time. So if you want to be a courageous person, you have to think to yourself, I've got to see fear. I've got to feel fear. There's always going to be a fear present. I feel fear all of the time. Every successful person that you could go out and see and Elon Musk and all of the most successful people in the world, you go to them and say, hey, do you feel fear sometimes? They're all going to say yes. The difference is the feeling of fear does not stop them from taking the action that they need to in order to get their goals. So next time you feel fear, realize what that's showing you is it's showing you the edge of your comfort zone. You don't feel fear in your comfort zone, but when you're starting to step out of your comfort zone, like public speaking, the example that we're giving, when you start to step out of your comfort zone, you're going to feel fear. Doing something new is scary to the brain because the brain only cares about your safety. So it doesn't know that when you walk onto stage that you're going to be safe and you're not going to die because we're tribal people. The brightest lights gets the most arrows.   You're not going to be attacked, but you have to realize that fear is just this natural emotion that you need to learn to dance with. You don't need to get rid of fear and in fact, you'll never get rid of fear. So just get used to it. You need to learn to dance with your fear and go, okay, what am I feeling? I'm feeling fear. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with the feeling of fear. So what am I feeling fear around? I'm feeling the fear around this. Okay, is that fear stopping me from still taking action that I need to take? No, it's not at all. Okay, so can I still take the action? Yes. All right, Rob, go ahead and take the action. And that's how you get what it is that you want in life is to notice that fear is omnipresent. It's going to be more present than most other emotions if you're trying to create the life that you want. If you're trying to step out of your comfort zone, if you're trying to do things you've never done, fear should be omnipresent, but it doesn't mean that because fear is there, you're not going to be able to work through it. The same way that Evander Holyfield, the same way that GSP, the same way that Mike Tyson all felt fear, the beautiful thing about it, and the thing that made them some of the greatest in the world is that when they felt fear, they did it anyways. They never doubted themself, they over-prepared, and in that state, they were able to build more courage than anybody else around them. So feel the fear and do it anyways. Hey, thanks so much for watching this video. If you want to learn even more about Master Your Mind, click right here and watch this video as well. So I'm going to take a guess that I probably know 95% of you, what your fear is. How many of those can kill you? The answer is zero. We're actually born with only two fears, the fear of fear and the fear of fear.


10 Richest Footballers in Ghana 2022 Ghana has given butth to a number of talented soccer players. The vast majority of them represented well-known clubs from around the world. Football is no longer a sport for people who have no plans for the future. Nowadays, many sponsors, businessmen, and fans of the game pour millions of dollars into it for profit or simply for personal enjoyment. Footballers have gone from being uneducated people to some of the most celebrated people on the planet as a result of this. Many Ghanaian footballers have made it big in the game and are now among the richest players on the continent. Please subscribe to Africa Reloaded as we bring you the top 10 wealthiest Ghanaian footballers and their net worth. 10. Afrayi Aqua – 4 Million Dollars He is a midfielder for Yeni Malachiespo and was born on January 5, 1992 in Accra. Ebenezer Afrii Aqua began his career at the Glentorum Football Academy in Sanyani Ghana, founded by Sunyani native Christopher Forsyth. He is one of Ghana's wealthiest footballers. During his time at Glentorum, Aqua was named best Ghanaian midfielder under 14. Aqua, who ranks 10th on our list of Ghana's wealthiest footballers, is known for his athletic ability as a powerful and quick footballer. He learned Italian from his tutor after moving to Italy in 2010. Some of the notable Italian clubs for which the Ghanaian midfielder has played include Palermo, Parma on loan, Torino, and Empoli. 9. John Boy – 5 Million Dollars Boy began his career at Schweppes Youth Academy, alongside Mohamed Idi, before moving on to Pro Consult Sports Academy and Miracle FC. Boy is a defender for Ghana's national team and is ranked ninth on the list of the richest footballers in Ghana. John Boy's primary position is centre-back, but he is also capable of playing right and left back. He is paid approximately $600,000 per year. FC Metz is current club, signed him on July 21, 2018. He was born in Accra, Ghana on April 23, 1987. 8. Quadru Assamore – 6 Million Dollars Quadru Assamore, also known as Kojo, is a Ghanaian professional footballer who currently represents his country. He began his professional career in 2008 with the Italian club Udinese, and his consistent performances drew the attention of European clubs. He joined Juventus in 2012, and with his enthusiasm, adaptability, and technical skills, he helped the team win six consecutive Serie A titles between 2013 and 2018, among other titles, despite injury limiting his appearances in his later seasons. He joined Inter in 2018. At the international level, he has represented Ghana in four Africa Cup of Nations competitions and two FIFA World Cups. He was named CF's most promising African player in 2010 and Ghana player of the year twice in a row in 2012 and 2013. His annual salaries around $3 million, and he is ranked eighth on this list of Ghana's richest football players. 7. Christian Atsu – 14 Million Dollars Atsus is the seventh player on our list, and he plays for Premier League club Newcastle United, as well as the Ghanaian national team. He is primarily used as a winger, but he has also been used as an attacking midfielder. He received some of his education at the then Final Football Academy in Gomofete, in Ghana's central region, which has now been renamed West African Football Academy in Silicope, in Ghana's Volta region. He is currently one of the most talented young players in the English Premier League, where he earns a weekly salary of £30,000. The winder performs admirably on the field and is well liked by those close to him. 6. Andrew Ayou – 15 Million Dollars The young Ghanaian footballer, Andrew Morgan Rami Ayou, born on December 17, 1989 in Secklin, France, is also known as Didi Ayou in Ghana. He comes from a football family. His father, Abedi Ayou, was the African footballer of the year three times. Ayou began his career in Ghana with Nanya, where he made his debut at the age of 14. He signed with Marcel, his father's Abedi Peleu former club, in 2005 and spent two seasons in the club's youth academy before making his debut in the 2007 to 2008 season. He is currently a professional football player for Swansea City in the English Premier League and a member of the Ghanaian national team. He is currently paid £9,300 per week. 5. Jordan Ayou – 18 Million Dollars Jordan Pierre Ayou is another son of A Peleu, the great Ghanaian football legend. He was born in Marcel, France on September 11, 1991. He is Andrew Ayou's younger brother. He is a member of the national team as well as one of Europe's top football clubs. He previously played for Lorient, a club in the French League and now plays for Crystal Palace FC in England, where he earns £1.7 million per year. Jordan Ayou is currently Ghana's fifth richest footballer. 4. Kevin Prince Boateng – 20 Million Dollars Kevin Prince Boateng was born in Germany and is of mixed race due to his Ghanaian father and German mother. He has previously played for Tottenham Hotspur, Portsmouth, Milan, Schalk 04, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Eintracht Frankfurt, among others, and is currently a Serie A player with ACF Fiorentina. In addition to playing professional football, Kevin Prince Boateng enjoys rapping in his spare time. When he released the video for his first rap song, King, in 2018, fans were overjoyed. He is widely regarded as one of the best attackers in both Ghana's professional team and his current club. His most recent annual salary was around €600,000. 3. Sali Alimantari – Net Worth – 22 Million Dollars Suleiman Alimantari, also known as Sali Mantari, was born on August 27, 1984 in Canango, Ghana. Suleiman Alimantari, colloquially known as Sali Mantari Mantari's abilities, were first revealed in youth tournaments while playing for the Liberty Professionals youth team. At the age of 16, he became a regular member of Ghana's under-20 team, which finished runners-up at the 2000 and won FIFA World Youth Championship in Argentina, losing to the hosts in the final. This soccer player has benefited greatly not only from his lucrative football career, but also from numerous contracts with the majority of England's richest clubs. 2. Asamo Guyane – Net Worth – 23 Million Dollars He was born in Accra on November 22, 1985. Jayane began his professional career in 2003 with Ghanaian Premier League club Liberty Professionals, where he scored 10 goals in 16 games. Asamo Guyane is a former Ghanaian national team striker and captain. He is the all-time leading goalscorer for the Ghana national team, with 51 goals. His successful career has allowed him to amass assets such as the $3 million McCarthy Hill House and a Rolls Royce worth around $400,000. When he was playing for the Chinese team Shanghai SIPG, he earned £227,500 per week after taxes or approximately £11.9 million per year. This made him the world's eighth highest-paid player and the highest-paid footballer in Africa. 1. Michael Kojo Essian – $35 Million Michael Kojo Essian is currently Ghana's richest footballer. He was dubbed the bison because of his powerful and fearless play, and he now plays in the midfield, where he excelled. He has also played more than 50 times for Ghana's national team. Essian began his career in Ghana with Liberty Professionals. He relocated to France in 2000 to join Bastia. Essian won back-to-back lead titles with Lyon in 2000 and three to four and 2004 to five and was named lead one player of the year in 2005. He obtained French citizenship during his five-year stay in France. Michael Essian is without a doubt Ghana's richest footballer. Forbes also named him one of Africa's wealthiest footballers. The good thing about many of Ghana's richest footballers is that they give back to the community. The players will be seen participating in community programs that benefit society's most vulnerable members. Thank you for your time. If you haven't already, please subscribe to Africa Reloaded for more videos.


Hey, this is Brett, and this 2016 Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat is stock number 13900Z. I'm here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, you're new and use sports car and Dodge Challenger headquarters. This 2016 Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat has the 6.2 liter supercharged V8 engine. It puts out 707 horsepower with the red key, and it has the 8-speed automatic transmission. This car has been fully-safetyed and inspected by our service shop, has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off, and this car is 100% ready to go. I'm going to go all the way around in this video. Inside, start it up, take a look under the hood, give you the most accurate representation that I can of the car. And white ivory tricote metallic is a color I shoot all my videos in 4K, so if you have HD capabilities, turn them on. Now, and if you like the video, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel, which is youtube.com, slash Summit Auto. Click the bell notifications, you'll get updates on the videos I do each and every day, as well as having access to one of the largest catalogs of vehicle and sports car walk-arounds on YouTube. This one comes with the 20-inch painted alloy wheels. It has the Brembo brakes, and it has Leicnu Pirelli P0 Niro, Pirelli Scorpion P0 Niro tires, or their Pirelli P0s. They have just about all the tread left. On them, only 360 miles or so on this car. Very low miles, and very, very clean all the way around, as you'll see in the video. Front bumper and lower valance are absolutely perfect. No scuffs, scrapes, dents, cracks on there. You get the HID headlamps, LED running lights. We'll turn those on at the end of the video. You get the tri induction, well it has a cowl induction, and then the dual heat extractor hood. One of my favorite hoods on the Challengers, and I didn't see any denser dings on that hood. Passengers side front fender is absolutely perfect, as well. And the passenger side front wheel, no major scuffs or scrapes on there. As you go, actually let's take a look at that ivory white tri-coat. You can see all the metal flake in there, and just how nice and perfect that paint is. As you go down this side of this 2016 Dodge Challenger, take note of how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror-like that paint is. I take these HD videos, so if you are far away, or even if you're close by, and you just cannot make the trip down, but you're still interested in purchasing the car, you can see the car, hear the car, and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at. So that when you do get here, there's absolutely no surprises, and you can make a smart and informed buying decision from wherever you're at. Here's this video. It helps you make that buying decision. Let your salesman know that you saw the video, that it was helpful, and that Brett sent you. Very nice down that side. Didn't see any dents or dings, and the back wheel is in fantastic condition as well. Down the rest of this side of the car, absolutely perfect coming around to the back. Rear bumper is in great shape. It does have the backup parking sensors, the black chrome dual-tip exhaust, the back, and the LED tail lamps as well. Trunk lid is in a very nice condition. Back storage area is very clean as well. And you do get the Harman Kardon subwoofers back here, tire inflator kit, and that's where your battery is located. The trunk shocks are doing a nice job holding that trunk lid up. Shuts nice and solidly. As you go down the driver's side, just as clean as that passenger's side, no dents or dings on there. And for full disclosure, this back wheel is just as clean as the rest. Driver's side door, the edge is absolutely perfect, and the door itself is in fantastic condition. No dents or dings on there. It does have blind spot monitoring, and these mirrors are heated. Enter and go system inside. The Hellcat package gives you the brown Sepia Laguna leather seats. No rips or tears. This car has never been smoked in. Very nice shape. There is just a little bit of wear right there. Power driver's seat with lumbar, factory floor mats, auto headlamps, power windows, locks, and mirrors, and Harman Kardon premium sound system. Take a quick look at the back seats. They're just as clean as front seats, no rips or tears back there. And you do get the latch child safety system for any child car seats you may want to try and put back there. Hop inside, check out the miles, the radio, and everything that this car has to offer on the interior. You can see this one only has 365 miles on it. You could be Hellcat animation there. Digital spinometer instrument cluster is very nice and clean. All the corners are configurable. Comes with the heated leather wrap steering wheel. There's controls on the right, Bluetooth and information center controls on the left. Audio controls in the back of the steering wheel and the paddle shifters right there. You get the 8.4 3C radio. This one has the factory navigation system on it. There's highway 41, so you can see that is working nicely. You always want to check on these challengers for whatever reason. Sometimes the NAV systems go out on the radios. This one's working perfectly. AM, FM, and Sirius XM radio capabilities on here. Heated and cooled seat buttons. Steer wheel controls. You get all your different apps on here. It does have the drive modes and the SRT performance pages and everything like that. So while they're loading, I will show you the buttons down here, push button start. You get your volume and tune controls as well as your launch SRT, which takes you to the performance pages, stability control, parking sensors, and your dual climate controls right there. You get the machine finished center console and dash controls. Here are the performance pages. You have your timers, which do take a second to load up as well. You also have your gauges, gauges 2, your G-Force, and what your engine's doing. Down here is your keyless entry with your remote start. That's a nice shape. That's the black key. We do have the red keys, so it does come with two red keys. Passengers side, format, and seat are absolutely perfect. This car has never been smoked in. The headliner is in great shape. You do get map lights up there, home link buttons for your garage doors, security systems, and lane systems, assist and 911 buttons in the mirror. We'll start it up and take a look under the hood, check out all those LED lights and HID lights, and we'll also check out that exhaust. Starts right up. No check engine lights or anything like that. Love the exhaust on these Hellcats. Black exhaust, it's just great. Love the LED tail lamps as well. I would personally like to thank you for checking out the video today, and hopefully from this HD video you've been able to verify the quality condition options, and of course, cleanliness of this car all the way around inside and out. We do have another 360 mile car that came from the same owner as this one in our inventory. I'll link that in the description below. This is the HID headlamps, LED running lights, and under the hood we have the 6.2 liter supercharged V8 Hemi engine, engine base is very clean, runs very smooth. Once again, this car has been fully safety inspected as a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off, shocks are doing a nice job holding that hood up, and this car is 100% ready to go. There is the emission sticker. I would highly recommend this car from a quality and condition standpoint. I didn't see a single dent, ding, scratch, scuff on it, just about as new as you can get for a 2016. To see more pictures of this car, one of other 550 new and used cars, trucks, SUVs, minivans, Wranglers, Challengers, Chargers, Mustangs, Corvettes, Camaros, you name it, we've got to go to that website right there, summitauto.com, full pictures and descriptions. All at summitauto.com. If you'd like to check out more HD videos, you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto click the bell notifications. You've got updates on the videos I do each and every day, as well as having access to one of the largest catalogs of vehicle and sports car walkarounds on YouTube, 8,000 videos and counting. In fact, in a second you'll see a link to subscribe to my YouTube channel on the upper left, a link to more Challenger videos I've done in the upper right, link to this vehicle on our website on the lower left, and a link to the twin of this car in the lower right. Click those, check us out. We're super excited to help you with this ultra clean, super low mileage 2016 Dodge Challenger Hellcat and Ivory White Tri-Code Metallic. Thanks again for checking out the video. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on the YouTube channel. I really appreciate it. Thanks again.


Hey, what's up coach? Welcome back to the channel. I'm gonna shoot this video and just upload it straight to YouTube So zero edits. This is very raw very to the point And I'm gonna show you the top three discoveries that I've seen with the coaches that we've worked with in 2023 and Hopefully you can take what I talk about and execute this in your business Because when you do you're gonna see big results if you just watch this video and you say oh Some good ideas and you don't do anything then there's nothing else that I can give you in this video that can help you Okay, so write these things down and execute. That's all I ask. Okay, so the first thing and This is number one because we have coached enough people since 2016 that have businesses that do what I'm about to show you and these are the people that get the best results So number one, it's coaches that go from selling session by session Which is like you're selling your time You're selling your your whole business is lesson based where you charge $50 an hour or maybe a hundred dollars per hour And it's coaches that go from that model to Upfront payments where parents are committed to three six or twelve months of your training program so you go from selling a Lesson to building a program those are two very different things and when you are selling a program You have more skin in the game from the parents that pay you when you sell lessons There's less of a commitment because they can show up. Whenever they want they can book out whenever they want They can kind of pay however they want and when someone buys a program they go through a very specific process and This way as a business owner. You are in more control of who you get to work with all right I'm going to give you a very good example here. I have taught to Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of coaches this year that watch our YouTube videos that text me after they get them watching one of our Videos and a lot of these coaches what happens is They have a lot of clients. They have 50 to 100 clients, which is cool. That's great But those clients aren't committed These are these are people that they kind of show up whenever they pay whenever and These coaches struggle because they don't have reliable income from these 50 to 100 clients And what we would rather you have is I'd rather you have 25 Clients that are dialed in these are clients that are on a contract that you can expect monthly recurring revenue from Versus having 50 to 100 clients that aren't really that serious They don't have skin in the game. And when you treat your business in that manner Everything changes because you start to realize that a you're not selling lessons anymore B it's going to require a bigger time and a financial bigger financial commitment for the customers that you work with and See your whole business is simplified because now you're never chasing money Clients are chasing after you and that's a big mindset shift that you have to make going into 2024 okay, so that's number one. It's how you sell Your program and how you stop selling sessions. Okay, that's number one number two This is a killer for a lot of coaches But this is why I want to create this video because I haven't really gone into depth that much about this topic which is Really taking ownership over your finances. Okay. I know a lot of coaches who can make a lot of money and that's cool We teach coaches how to make more money coaching sports. That's the name of our website make money coaching sports calm All right, we teach coaches how to do that But there's a lot of coaches that can make money and then when we get to the end of the year There's nothing to show for it They they live way beyond way out of their means Meaning if they make 8k one month, they are going to spend a lot of that they go on some super nice vacation They they go buy a car that they actually can't afford They are going into more debt. I mean, there's a million different Problems that we see that coaches in particular have with finances and that doesn't need to be a problem for you Because what you need to do is you have to shift your mind towards I'm running a business And I'm not going to get caught up with how other people live when they run and operate their business on Instagram, okay, and that's that's the biggest thing right now Like it looks so cool on Instagram to post pictures of vacations post pictures of new cars like That's the cool thing right now on the internet and if you fall into that trap and you think that that's what success is I'm just telling you straight up.   It's not how much profit did you make? It's not Like how many cool cars you have it's going to be how much money at the end of the month Are you actually keeping? All right, because again a lot of coaches can profit a lot in this business. I have taught to More than 25 people this year that make more than a million dollars per year in revenue Okay, so this is a really big industry and there's a way more coaches that haven't taught to me that make way more than that That have really successful businesses So you can be super successful in this business but what you do with your money is very important and it's a really boring subject because like It's not fun and enjoyable to talk about I don't have a ton of content about it but this video is for you if you have been an idiot with your money and You make money, but you just immediately spend it You will never have a successful business that way because as you make more money your spending power is going to go up and You're gonna think that oh I Just made a lot more money this month.  Okay. That's number two and there's really not much more. I can say about that the third thing and Honestly, this one's kind of hard for me to talk about Because I could go in 10 million different directions with this, but I'm gonna try to make this as simple as possible, which is You want your clients to be on a contract?  It is a legit contract like coaches that we work with They have that contract. They implement that contract. They stick with that contract I have talked to too many coaches though this year and what they do is they might have some contract in place But they don't enforce that contract. So let me give you an example. Let's say that a client pays $2,000 upfront for your service for a year which like I know a lot of coaches who can charge 2k per year for their service per client and They pay 2k and then after a month they want to refund and In your contract it states that there are no refunds but you give them a refund because you're bending towards your customers and I Know a lot of people always talk about like oh the customer is always right Just give the customer what they want but the thing is is like if you have standards and expectations in your business and People agree to those and you don't actually follow those then you my friend or are a fraud That means that you are having people agree to something that you don't actually believe in So why have that in the first place? Okay, and that's really important And I that's why I'm taking the time talking about this because a lot of coaches will say things in their agreement That they actually don't live up to like they'll say oh, yeah, we're gonna train One time per week at this time at this place, and then they don't even like they don't even Fulfill that they're into the bargain so When you when you have stuff like this set up you need to enforce the rules But you need to live up to what's on the agreement Otherwise don't have an agreement and I will tell you in agreement That that one thing alone will help your business make way more money If you follow through with it if you don't follow through with it. Well, why have an agreement in the first place? Okay, why haven't the first place now if you really soak in these three things that I just talked about It's gonna help you a lot And if you want step-by-step like real guidance with this go down in the link in the description You'll see my phone number there reach out to me I'd love to talk with you if you go to our website right now You will literally see Thousands of case studies from coaches that we've already worked with successfully that I've grown six-figure businesses a lot of coach To work with now are in the seven figures. So go check out our website Go look through the link in the description You can see my phone number and I can't wait to talk to you. Have a great day


What's up everybody, Jason here for JaspysCaseBrace.com. We're giving away five free spots in this filler, where we're giving away 15 teams in pick your team number six of Bowman Jumbo with this 2023 Bowman Jumbo one-pack break number five. Then guys, just like all the other breaks, we'll do the pack break first, randomize the Cousin Bernanke team to show the hits up. Then at the end, we'll take the Cousin Bernanke, randomize them into the top 15 names. I think I forgot to change it out right here that said top 13, but it's top 15. Get a team that they match up with right here. So first, before we start, I'm gonna use this dice roll. We're gonna give away some spots in the break. So we'll click the dice roll, we'll use the dice roll here. We'll randomize the first 20, the 25 names that bought in. Top five, get an extra free spot. We'll paste in the five names and then we'll have a total of 30 for names and teams. We'll use the same dice roll then. We'll paste in the names with the winners and we'll do that at the end and give away those teams in the break. All right, so here we go. Dice roll. Snake eyes, just two times. All right, so top five, get free extra spots. One, two. Matt, Travis, Travis, Nicole, and Michael.  And we'll put a little character sign there. Now I'm gonna copy and paste this list for later when we do the giveaway for the teams in the break. Now in the meantime though, we'll use the same dice roll to randomize the names and teams for the pack break. One, two. Matt Johnson, down two, Matt. Winners out of the Cubs. All right guys, so again, stick to what you got. No trading. Let's quickly do the pack filler now. I see a little blue. Christian Serda, little blue shimmer to 150.  Now let's switch scenes here and again the top 15, get a team now. Matching up from the top there from the Phillies down to the White Tux. And here we go. Dice roller, there's the names. Good luck, roll it. One out of five, six times. Good luck, six times. Here we go. One, two, three, four, five, six. So again, top 15 are in. So I'm just gonna go up slowly and at the top is David. So at the top there, David, all the way down to Michael Pacifico and then let's see who the top 15 are. And then we'll announce who you guys got. So only the top 15 in, so from David down to Matt. Squeeze in there. Unfortunately the rest from Scott down to Michael, not in, thanks for giving it a shot. And let's see, so David, here are the Phillies. Drivers of the Marlins, Mark with the Braves. Jeremy Port with the Giants. Nicole with the Red Sox, that was a free spot, as well as Travis got that from a free spot. Nicole, your straight up spot, Tigers. Jason with the Rangers. Michael with the Royals. Jose with the Pirates. Rick with the Guardians. David with the Rockies. Travis, last spot, Molja Pirates. And another free spot for you, Travis, got you the Cardinals. As well as the Nationals. And then Matt squeezing in, getting the White Sox. So there you go, folks. In a separate video, I'm gonna paste in these names and then we'll start picketing number six, guys. Thank you.