It all comes out in the wash

We all know people who are meticulous about their finances down to the penny. The coupon clipper mentality extends into every aspect of their daily life. Making sure, for example, a restaurant bill among friends is divided evenly to the nickle. Leaving an exact 18% tip.

This attitude about money would drive me crazy. The payoff just doesn't seem worth it. Earlier in the week, I watched a woman argue with a train conductor about having to pay a $5 surcharge because she purchased her ticket on the train -- rather than at the window or from one of the automatic kiosks. The $5 surcharge is steep relative to the $7.50 ticket price but that's the point-- to reinforce the practice of buying your ticket in advance. Sure, there are always mitigating circumstances -- a long line at the ticket booth or a broken kiosk. The conductor rarely waves the surcharge though because there is no way for him to discern the legitimacy of your excuse.

Later in the day, I had breakfast with a friend. It was early and some repair work was still being done on the premises -- it was noisy but not intolerable. Our waiter moved us to another table. We had a long and enjoyable discussion. When I asked for the check, to my pleasant surprise, the waiter added that the breakfast was on the house. We walked out with big smiles.

Win some/lose some. A sane approach to life's small change.

Google, the Cold Call and K Commerce

I had lunch this week with the Chief Marketing Officer of a large retailer with a significant web presence. The purpose of our lunch was to review trends in marketing and media particularly as they relate to a small business trying to grow. His key message is that the search engine -- and Google in particular -- has fundamentally changed everything about the marketing business.

This is not "new news". The search process allows customers to bypass the traditional marketing channels and brand messages. If you are looking to buy a new car or appliance, you do not need to visit the showroom. Likewise, you can ignore most mass media commercials and do your own proprietary research on the web. This is taking place every day in every home and office around the world.

What is interesting about search is how it has changed the nature of business start-ups. It used to be that established companies had a significant competitive advantage in terms of experience, know-how, business contacts and relationships. True, large companies still have the advantage of scale and resources -- but these can be obstacles too in terms of inertia and risk avoidance. Search has made the playing field more level for small companies pursuing new business opportunities.

I know this first hand being involved in a start up. What makes this level playing field possible is the willingness of companies to communicate, collaborate and conduct business via the web -- often with companies they have never heard of or business people they have never met. In the last sixty days, I have repeatedly hit the "contact us" button on a home page and have received prompt and helpful replies. Business owners or their staff are more than willing to conduct business with other companies over the web. This is especially true in the case of one small company doing business with another. Not only is the web fast and efficient -- it has become the most valuable source of new customers.

What these companies know is that fast, courteous and "we are interested in doing business with you" replies will ultimately drive their business. And you never know, it may be that the individual contacting you represents the next Crocs. This is the new karma of commerce, or k-commerce for short.

Nike and The Last of the Mohicans

NFL fans will recognize this hard hitting Nike commercial featuring Shawne Merriman, linebacker for the San Diego Chargers. The background music features the theme song from the movie, The Last of the Mohicans, based on James Fenimore Cooper's novel of the same name. The movie stars Daniel Day-Lewis.

Showing its softer side, Nike announced today that it will introduce a running shoe specially designed for Native Americans. The Beaverton, Oregon based company introduced the shoe in an effort to promote physical fitness among this impoverished group.

The Air Native N7 is designed with a larger fit for the distinct foot shape of American Indians, and has a culturally specific look. The shoe will be provided free or at wholesale cost.

I can't imagine that a lack of running shoes is a significant factor in the epidemic level obesity rates among Native Americans, but I suppose the launch of the shoe can't hurt. Developing, designing and launching a shoe is not hassle free -- so hats of to Nike for the time, energy and money to do so.

Common Sense Defense

Forget about the chart (courtesy of The Wall Street Journal) at the top of the page for a moment.

Imagine you are a reasonably successful. Married with two children with a nice house in the New York suburbs. You are making $150,000 a year. On the surface, life appears pretty good.

Unfortunately, though, mortgage and real estate taxes are taking about half of your take home pay. And, the bank just informed you that the monthly payments on your variable rate jumbo mortgage will soon increase by $400.00. Although you clear $95,000 each year after taxes, over $55,000 goes towards the house.

You are failing to save any money for your future (for college and retirement planning). Housing expenses are too high relative to your income. Common sense suggests that you re-structure your finances by moving to a lower priced house. While emotionally painful, you would be able to increase your savngs rate.

Now, lets go back to the chart above. The same lack of common sense applies to the government -- just add more zeroes. The 2007 Federal Budget stands at about $933 billion. Of this total, a gigantic $530 billion goes towards defense, State Department operations and Homeland Security. The analogy extends further. Long-term financial needs such as energy, health care, education and infrastructure spending are being shortchanged because there is so little left after defense spending. Common sense suggests that we re-structure our budget; cut defense spending by $100 billion and invest the savings in our future. At the very least, we could provide health insurance for every child in America.

Push aside moral questions about the Iraq War or the need to protect us against terrorism. Look at the facts. On military alone, we annually spend about 7 times more than China or Russia -- and 70 times more than North Korea. Hawks would argue that on a percent GDP basis, China, Russia and North Korea spend more. But at some point, percentages are no longer meaningful because our absolute spending level is so huge.

Given the choice presented to our illustrative family, many would opt out of moving and unfortunately live with the consequenses of under investing in their future. The sames goes with the Federal budget. It is highly unlikely that the Government will reduce military spending to fund long term investments.

It's too bad common sense doesn't prevail when it comes to financial planning -- especially when it comes to government spending.

UAW says "We are going to strike like its 1958"

The UAW announced today that it has called a national strike against GM -- the first such action in decades.

Add this to the huge problems facing GM. If you are looking for a definition of huge, try this. GM has almost 340,000 retirees and surviving spouses and about $51 billion in unfunded retiree health costs -- which is about two and a half times GM's current market cap of just under $20 billion.

These health care costs are one of the reasons GM remains non-competitive in the showroom. Every car GM produces costs about $1500 more than a similar Japanese model due to employee health care costs. GM's problems are bound to get worse before they get better.

It's too bad it's not 1958. GM would be selling lots of Impalas like the sweet one shown above. And, national labor strikes would be a relevant and effective negotiating tool. The UAW says the strike is not about retiree health benefits but about job security for current employees. With a strike fund of $800 million, the UAW says that it has the financial capacity to strike for a year -- assuming workers are paid $200 a week. Too bad its not 1958. Back then, $200 was a lot of money.

Twenty years ago when I was commuting to mid-town Manhattan, I stopped on my way to the office at a Greek coffee shop on 7th Avenue In my ambitious, rising young executive days, I needed my daily two cups of coffee and cinnamon raison bagel -- a bargain even then at $2.50. The coffee itself was $1 each. This was before coffee was fashionable and social as it is today (pre-Starbucks).

I recently re-discovered the $1 cup of coffee. Before doing my morning yoga practice, I now stop at a Korean grocer in trendy SOHO for a cup of coffee to get me going. The price is still $1. The coffee is hot, fresh and naturally sweet. A few steps away, there is a Starbucks selling coffee for twice that amount, coffee that in my view isn't as good. It's true that I probably can't get steamed soy at the Korean grocer but the coffee is good enough to drink black.

I am thrilled that there are still places in NYC selling coffee for a dollar. Coffee like oil is a commodity subject to fluctuating supply and demand cycles. Unlike coffee though, the price of oil at the pump has more than tripled in the last 20-30 years. I worked in the coffee business at P&G and know first hand the havoc that coffee prices can inflict on margins. The typical NY coffee shop is most likely absorbing these fluctuations, using reasonably priced coffee as a loss leader. Not that the Korean green grocers are hurting -- the cost of the $1 cup of coffee is probably less than 10 cents.

True, I don’t know that the coffee is organic or fair trade. And the green grocer might be making up his loss by charging customers a lot more for other items. But I am happy that the $1 coffee still exists.

LLBean -- Guaranteed Good Karma

L.L. Bean posted this message on the wall of his first retail store in Freeport Maine in 1912. The company has stood by this guarantee ever since.

I have long admired the customer service policy of L.L. Bean. In essense, a customer can return any product for any reason at any time. And if you do not wish to exchange the product for another, you can receive a full refund.

I returned a four year old pair of Bean boots because they were splitting at the heel. Back came a new pair in less than a week. Likewise, many years ago, I returned a blue suit purchased at Brooks Brothers because it picked up excess lint. I was offered a no cost exchange for a higher priced suit (something a recent business school grad with school loans could not afford at the time). The exchanges cemented my loyalty to both companies for a long time.

Why do most companies chose not to adopt this policy? The reason is fear. Fear that their products will not stand up to a 100% guarantee. Fear that the financial cost of exchanges (inventory write offs, lost margins (double the cost of good sold for a single sale, etc.) will not be offset by higher revenue. And so on.

I suspect though a deeper fear. Fear that customers will abuse the policy -- and if you mistrust customers, they will end up mistrusting you.

L.L. Bean extends this policy to every single product -- not just low price items (where they could afford to take the hit) or high margin items (where the high margin could cover the incremental cost of goods sold). Every product is covered -- from kayaks to hand crafted fly rods.

The benefit to L.L. Bean is not just a great customer experience. The policy becomes the backbone of the Company, providing the discipline to make sure all products and services are up to it. It's too bad there are not more companies as disciplined as this. There is too little guaranteed good karma in the commercial world we live in.

Albrecht's Comeback Karma

Chris Albrecht, the disgraced former CEO of HBO, will join the talent agency IMG, owned by buyout kind, Ted Forstmann. Albrecht will develop new business development efforts for TV and digital platforms. IMG represents Tiger Woods and Roger Federer, among other leading sports celebrities. During Albrecht's reign at HBO, the cable channel produced such hits as The Sopranos, Sex and the City and Six Feet Under.

Albrecht was quickly fired by Time Warner earlier in the year after being arrested and pleading guilty for choking his girlfriend in a Las Vegas parking lot. He admitted to a drinking problem; it was widely reported at the time that many years before, Time Warner paid a $400,000 settlement to a female employee after complaining of physical abuse by Albrecht.

In the New York Times yesterday, Albrecht was quoted as saying after his firing, "I made a mistake, and I paid a big price for it.”

Albrecht is enormously talented and combines a rare and balanced mix of creative instincts and business skills. Without this talent, Albrecht would have had no chance for a comeback. With this talent, however, doors quickly re-opened. It's now up to Albrecht to keep the doors open.

Jeffrey Immelt

Jeffrey Immelt is an extraordinary capable executive. I don't know this through personal interaction but it is a safe bet anyway. As your probably know, Immelt succeeded the legendary Jack Welch to become the Chairman and CEO of GE in 2001, when he was still in his mid-forties.

Ge is a giant -- revenues in excess of $160 billion in 2006 producing everything from airplane engines to the NBC television network. It does business in over 100 countries and employs about 300,000 people worldwide.

GE is also famous for its management development program and fierce succession planning particularly focused on the CEO position. Immelt has generally earned good marks for his performance as CEO, although beating the value creating run of his predecessor may be next to impossible. So, without doubt, he is highly capable. I would further venture to say that he is also a high integrity leader as well.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal did a piece on Immelt, focusing on the GE CEO's visible pro-environment stance and his commitment to convert GE into a eco-friendly economic force. This is no easy challenge given the magnitude of GE operations and its troubled history of polluting the Hudson River.

Immelt's commitment to eco-friendly business practices, services and products has been branded Ecomagination. Both in and outside of GE, there has been considerable push back. Customers and his own management team would prefer to just get on with business. Competing in the global marketplace and meeting GE's financial performance benchmarks are hard enough without adding the burden of the Ecomagination program.

Immelt is not an eco-crusader at all costs and is attempting to balance a variety of goals and constituent interests. What this means is that he would not depress revenues or earnings performance for the sake of Ecomagination. His team must do both. It is not uncommon for managers at all levels working at GE or almost any other company for that matter, to have both tangible and intangible goals. For example, a sales director might be charged with hitting a revenue target as well as creating a more diverse sales staff by employing more women and people of color. So, the GE focus on financial targets and Ecomagination is not that unusual.

Immelt publicly admits that he does not want the Ecomagination program to alter the economic flow of the company. But determining the economic flow of the company, especially looking out past 18 months, is very difficult, even for a company of GE's sophistication. And most eco-friendly practices, products and services require a 3-5 year framework (or even longer) to be justified financially. Investing in alternate energy programs today requires a belief in the continued rise of traditional energy prices over the next 5-10 years. You may intuitively believe this but how do you actually measure this belief -- because targets and evaluation of managers depends entirely on measurement to be fair and objective.

So maybe that is why the GE leadership team is unwilling to share Immelt's eco-friendly leap of faith. Let's turn away from GE to GM to further illustrate this point. Imagine you are the general manager of the Cadillac Escalade SUV. A few years ago, your sales were booming and you were more than willing to accept higher revenue targets for coming years -- and if you wanted your capacity expansion plans approved by the finance department, you had no choice but to put these higher revenue numbers in your own forecasts.

All is going good until gas exceeds $3 gallon and fuel efficiency becomes front and center with the consumer. You are left holding the bag as Escalade sales slump. Back to GE. Suppose you invest significant R&D money in alternate energy programs expecting oil prices to rise over the long term (a safe bit). But then to your surprise, OPEC increases daily oil production and oil prices fall over the near term. The economic justification of your R&D is now questionable in the near term. Immelt won't let you off the hook, even if you and he agree that the world will eventually run out of oil and these R&D investments will pay off. As a GE executive, you must deliver both near and long term results.

And that is the tricky part about managing the economic flow of the company. It all depends on your assumptions and how far out into the future you look. Assumptions are the numerical alchemy of the forecasting business. Under any set of asumptions, you don't want to be left holding the bag.

Numbers 32.23

I took the train in today and decided to stop by The Church of St. Francis on 32nd Street. If you have never been there, it is worth a stop; the outdoor prayer garden is an urban oasis. On the way in, I noticed a beggar sitting by the gated entrance, his sign said, "Homeless, Handicapped and Hungry." I returned to give him some change on the way and saw that he had left his post -- although his change cup, a half eaten sandwich and personal belongings remained. I dropped my change in his cup and proceeded on my way, having been denied his smile and thank you in return. Perhaps I would be paid back in some other way.

This morning, I was determined to write a story about good karma. I took a pass on writing about GE's environmental push or Honeywell's $8.2 million fine related to the death of one of his workers due to pollution exposure. Or, the Silicon Valley office building known for its "good karma" having housed such notable start ups as Pay Pal and Google.

Later on the subway, I noticed a small pamphlet left on the seat. The headline read, "You cannot sin successfully." It made reference to Numbers 32.23. I am not a student of the bible but a quick google search led me to the corresponding text "Be sure your sin will find you out." While it would be nice to illustrate the benefits of a good deed, 32.23 is an apt summary of Karma.

Perhaps my discovery on the subway was a gift from the beggar -- a small good deed will find you out.

A Tiny Carbon Footprint

I made my first trip to India six years ago to Kovalam -- a beautiful, tropical seaside village in Kerala, the southern most state. Kerala is known for the high literacy rate of its population (plus 95%); a diverse mix of Hindu, Muslim and Christian followers living peacefully together; the ancient tradition of Ayurvedic medicine; the serenity of small fishing villages; and the beauty of its beaches and inland water ways.

My hotel (the room was $4/night) was set within a hillside coconut grove. It was a clean, cinder block exposed building without Western conveniences -- yet with a warm and helpful staff. What more can you ask for at $4/night? As anyone who has been to India will attest, the culture shock of your first visit is a never ending explosion to the senses -- sights, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. The culture shock is a mix of extremes with pleasant experience interspersed with those which are not.

Over the next few days, a remarkable (and entirely pleasant) scene unfolded before my eyes. Each morning, I took a short walk and climbed a steep series of steps to an adjacent building to attend a roof top yoga session. On my first morning walk, I came across a woman at the village water pump filling an earthen jug. She was attentative to her task and did not give me much notice. When I returned two hours later in the daylight, I saw her again, using a hand-crafted broom to sweep the stone walkway in front of a small brick building. The building -- perhaps 10 ft by 12 ft at best -- had an opening but no visible door. I quickly concluded that the building was a garden or tool shed for the hotel and that the woman worked for housekeeping.

The next day, I saw the woman which I was coming to expect. This time, though she was in the shed sitting on the floor with a bunch of fresh vegatables in front of her. I now knew that this small building was not a tool shed. In fact, it was her home. Not wanting to stare or make her uncomfortable, I kept walking. The following day brought my biggest surprise.

This time, outside the hut stood two well groomed, uniform-attired school children (a girl perhaps 12 years old and her younger brother). To say I was shocked would be an understatement. It is not that I couldn't imagine a family of four living in a hut -- there are families all over India -- and the world for that matter -- who sleep with barely a tent above them. What surprised me was how clean, well dressed -- and happy these children appeared to be. The smiles on their faces and the pressed creases in their uniforms have stayed with me to this day.

In the more "developed" world, reducing your carbon footprint is the latest fashion particularly in the suburbs. The family I came across on this trip to India set an impossible to reach benchmark for one's carbon footprint. No electricity (no lights, a/c, television, radio, refrigerator). No plumbing (faucets, showers or toilets). No car. Maybe a propane stove.

Ironically, this family may have set an impossible to reach benchmark for happiness too. If gauged by the smiles on the face of their children.

WSJ - Eco-Altruism, More Due Process Karma

The Wall Street Journal ran two stories today following up on earlier posts.

In Personal Journal, the headline reads "Going Green To Save Some Green." In essence, big mortgage marketers are offering cash rebates to environmentally conscious home buyers -- Citigroup will offer $1,000 off closing costs if certain energy efficient improvements are made. Let's be clear -- this is not eco-altruism. Citigroup figures that savings in monthly fuel bills can be applied to a higher mortgage payment thereby allowing the home purchaser to afford a higher mortgage than he/she would under ordinary underwriting requirements. And of course, the higher the mortgage, the more up front fees and interest earned by Citigroup over the life of the mortgage.

And in the Investing section, it appears that Joseph Jett of Kidder Peabody fame has been ordered to turn over $8.4 million sought by the SEC. Jett was sued by the SEC in 1996 having concluded that he booked millions in bogus trading profits on bonds to conceal losses. It looks like it takes the government 10 years to collect. The SEC argued in 2006 that Jett failed to file a timely appeal, thereby voiding his due process rights. Over the last decade, Jett chose to spend his money building his money management firm, Jett Capital Management, rather than spending it in legal fees associated with appeal. It looks like it is time to pay the piper.

Marketer's Mantra -- "Green is the New Green"

Want to grow revenues faster? Build market share? Fatten the bottom line?

Then, Go Green -- Live Green -- and Buy Green! That's the marketing mantra to turn Eco-friendly consumer choices into extra revenue and profits for marketers. What's good for the environment is now good for business.

Everyday, millions of consumers make pro-environment choices often paying a premium to do so -- think organic milk. Sometimes, but not often, green choices work in the consumer's favor. My family recently stopped buying individual bottles of Poland Spring water and are now simply refilling reusable bottles. We save about $10/week offset only by the minor inconvenience of filling and washing the bottle.

On a grander scale, we recently made a pro-environment choice at considerable personal expense. We traded in our gas inhaling Yukon XL SUV (12 MPG city) for a Lexus RX Hybrid (31 MPG city). We start saving money on gas right away -- perhaps as much as $3000 a year. But, we have to wait 10 years before we recoup the $30,000 in cash we paid to make up the difference between the trade-in value of our Yukon and the dealer price on the Lexus -- and that's not considering the time value of our money.

On top of this, we paid a $4,000 premium for the hybrid model versus the standard Lexus RX 400. The dealer -- to his credit -- admitted that it will take 3-5 years to pay back this money. I am betting though that we lose money on this investment as well. The chances of keeping the new car for 5 years or more are low, given rapid improvements being made in car technology. Who wants to drive an obsolete car, when they can "re-cycle" it and enjoy a new car's improvements in comfort, safety and fuel economy?

Fortunately, my family can afford to make this kind of green choice -- although my financial advisor might advise us not to make too many economic decisions like this. But how about the car dealer? Are they sharing our pro-environment investment?

Turns out, the local dealer is making 3 additional margin points on the hybrid. That doesn't seem like much until you factor in the razor thin margins in the business of car dealerships. A 3 point increase in margin -- 8% to 11% is a big deal. What's good for the environment is good for business courtesy of the consumer.

Jeffrey Skilling's Due Process Karma

Former Enron Chief, Jeffrey Skilling, now serving a 24 year prison term, asked a federal appeals court to overturn his convictions for conspiracy, securities fraud, false statement and insider trading.

Skilling -- McKinsey trained and educated at Harvard Business School -- is generally viewed as the mastermind behind the massive Enron fraud -- which resulted in the largest bankruptcy in US history. Anyone who works at a public company and toils under Sarbanes Oxley governance regulations has Mr. Skilling to thank.

In 2001, Skilling was named CEO of Enron, replacing Ken Lay who famously had his Enron conviction reversed by dying of a heart attack. That year, Skilling received $132 million in compensation. After resigning the CEO post claiming "personal reasons" -- he quickly sold $60 million of Enron stock.

Skilling is now using what is left of his fortune to "manage" his Karma -- by virtue of the due process rights afforded him by the American judicial system. He spent $40 million in preparation for his first trial. Only if his appeal fails, will he be forced to turn over a $45 million fine to the Enron victim's fund. For now, he is free to spend some or all of these funds on his appeal.

Skilling currently resides at a low security federal prison in Waseca MN. In a 2006 Wall Street Journal article he mentioned that he will be able to survive his time in prison as long as he is given "something to do, something to accomplish." Anything to do but contemplate the law of Karma.

IS APPLE EVIL?

A person can be viewed as good or evil based on their actions. Think Hitler. Or Mother Theresa at an opposite extreme. Can a company be classified as good or evil?

Enron is usually viewed as an evil company. This ignores the majority of employees who innocently lost their jobs and life savings due to the illegal actions of a few. Johnson & Johnson earned a reputation of "goodness" for the swift and high integrity response to the Tylenol tampering decades ago. Companies earn a reputation based on the decisions made and the actions taken by a few or many -- often at the top of the pyramid.

The recent news about Steve Jobs' decision to unexpectedly reduce the price of the 8-gigabyte iPhone by $200 to $399 is a case in point. Apple is the envy of many for its (up to now) ever increasing stock price appreciation, the fanatical devotion and loyalty of its hip, young, "we're cooler than the PC crowd" fan base and market leading design and innovation. The news of the price cut is a rare example of a marketing misfire on Apple's part.

Wall Street quickly reacted with scepticism that Apple will hit its stated goal of selling one million iPhones in the U.S. by the end of this month. The growing belief is that the price cut was necessary to curtail post-launch softness.
The follow on reaction focused not on investors but on the customers first to buy the phones at the now higher price. Jobs' apology and offer of $100 gift certificate may not remedy to this dissatisfaction. Apple and Jobs have a pattern of after the fact apologies (think stock option practices) making their credibility suspect.

Wasn't there anyone within Apple who was willing to stand up and ask the question: "If we lower the price now, what will be the reaction from those who only recently purchased the iPhone at the higher price?" An open forum for these kinds of questions shapes good or evil actions -- as well as smart or dumb actions. And the role of the CEO is to ask them if no one else does. It's often not that difficult -- as in the situation of the iPhone price cut, these questions are as obvious and simple as old fashioned common sense. Truthfulness and standing by the customer, while sometimes painful, are the best course of action.

Notwithstanding the sleek design of the Apple stores and the presence of ever smiling Mac Geniuses, Apple has never been known for an attention to customer service. The Apple mission seems to be extraordinary customer experience set to stimulate purchase rather than satisfy long term. Dissatisfaction with obsolete iPods and concern about iPhone battery life are just two of the reasons to be sceptical about Apple's focus on the customer. Some argue that Apple's focus on innovation and design takes precedence over customer value and satisfaction -- but these principles are not mutually exclusive.

The iPhone price cut may not be sufficient evidence of an evil Apple empire. If it was an evil move on Apple's part, take heart that it was a dumb one as well -- the implications are transparent to just about everyone. Perhaps Jobs' and Apple aren't as smart as they think they are. Smart and evil -- now that's a truly scary combination. Much scarrier than evil and arrogant.

FORTUNE SALUTES EARTH'S DESTRUCTION

Want to feel even more insecure about the earth's future? Of course you do. Read on.

Take a look at Fortune Magazine's annual list of the Fastest Growing Companies in America. Back in the early 1990's, when this list was fist created, it celebrated our entrepreneurial spirit as a nation and spoke to the promise of the century that lie ahead. Technology companies, innovators and market builders were always showcased on the list. How things have changed since then!

The 2007 list -- released in spring, 2007 -- is a showcase for the earth's destruction. At least half of the companies on the list are in the traditional energy business -- exploration, drilling, refining and marketing of fossil fuels. And a good many more deal in the mining of metals and other precious commodities. Of course, rising prices are driving this record growth in revenues and earnings per share. And demand for energy continues to skyrocket across the globe. But should we really be saluting these companies as their financial performance correlates with a depletion of non-renewable natural resources? And what about the impact of rising prices and demand on customer value?

Do companies like Gulfmark Offshore and Pioneer Drilling get you excited?

Check for yourself and let me know what you think

link