Buy low, sell high? No: Buy low, sell fair.
It's received wisdom that the way to make money (in stocks, mainly -- but also in other areas of business) is to "Buy low, sell high". But I would suggest that people who rely on that approach are almost always lured into far too much optimism about the "sell high" part, causing them to fail to buy low. I say, "Buy low and sell fair[ly]." That requires you to be sure that you bought sufficiently low, which, ultimately, is where the real money is to be made. If you do enough to take care of the downside, the upside will take care of itself. And when we're not talking about the stock market (where buyer and seller are anonymous), but instead about a normal market for exchanges, this protects your reputation as a seller. People want to buy at a fair price -- a win-win exchange -- not at a high one. And when it comes to businesses, the best formula usually is to buy low and then hold on. A baseball team doesn't trade its best players because they've performed well; it keeps them as long as they have a reasonable expectation that the performance will continue.
In the news this week...
Sen. Ron Wyden says secret NSA rules allow for warrant-free searches of phone calls and e-mails
The Senator was responding to The Guardian and its request for information based upon documents leaked to it by Edward Snowden. President Obama seems to be reacting to some of the public outcry on these issues with some limited steps towards greater civilian oversight.
"When was the last time that Patch was relevant to your local life?"
TechCrunch asks a good question, particularly in light of AOL's plans to cut staffing at the online local-news source. The route ahead for local news is for established institutions (small community newspapers) to learn how to use the Internet effectively. Trying to start up a network with a national footprint and a national template (as Patch has done) really doesn't quite do the trick. But, unfortunately, many newspapers don't understand how to make the leap to digital.
Speculation runs rampant about Jeff Bezos's plans for the Washington Post
One thing is clear: If the newspaper (and its small group of affiliates) is losing $100 million a year with no clear end to the freefall in sight, then paying $250 million in cash to buy it signals that Bezos thinks the cachet associated with the name itself is worth at least $1.5 billion to $2 billion. A handsome sum for a trophy, but he can certainly afford it and may very well have brilliant plans for turning the tide.
Forbes names Des Moines best place for business and careers in America
No boom, no bust