Impact of the Internet on gambling

SOURCE: The Economist
Shuffle up and deal
The internet is radically changing the business of gambling. Now policy must catch up, argues Jon Fasman
A special report on gambling
Jul 8th 2010 | from PRINT EDITION
PINPOINTING a precise moment when the world changes is never easy, even in retrospect. Yet it is possible to say with relative confidence that the world of gambling was changed dramatically by events around a green felt table at Binion’s Horseshoe in Las Vegas on May 23rd 2003, the final day of that year’s World Series of Poker (WSOP). The hand immediately preceding the final table—the last nine of the tournament’s 839 competitors who would play for $2.5m—pitted Phil Ivey, one of the sharpest and most ruthless players of his time, against Chris Moneymaker, an unknown 27-year-old accountant from Nashville. The newcomer eliminated Mr Ivey thanks to a lucky draw on the last card dealt. Mr Ivey, a stone-faced old-school player, declined to shake his vanquisher’s hand. Mr Moneymaker went on to win the tournament.

His victory created what came to be called “the Moneymaker effect”: interest in poker soared. Suddenly spending time playing a game on a computer looked like a road to riches. And those riches seemed attainable. The stars in poker, unlike those in professional sport, look very much like the spectators; they just happen to be more successful. In the years since Mr Moneymaker’s victory, the tournament has variously been won by a patent lawyer, a Hollywood agent and a 21-year-old professional poker player.

It is not just professional poker that has changed out of all recognition in the past decade but all forms of gambling worldwide. The reason has been simple: for the first time anyone who wants to gamble and has an internet connection can do so. The desire has been there for much of recorded history. An excavation of a bronze-age city in south-eastern Iran turned up a pair of dice dating back nearly 5,000 years. Islam forbids gambling, but the Bible mentions casting lots or using fortune to determine an outcome. Card-playing for money has often been depicted in art (see detail above of Georges de la Tour’s “The Cheat with the Ace of Diamonds”, circa 1635-40).

Gambling’s widespread and enduring appeal comes as much from the hope of imposing order on the fundamental randomness of the world as from the expectation of economic gain (though that certainly has its charms). Blaming a bad result on an offended spirit or a good result on divine favour is far more comforting than accepting the cold indifference of probability.

But there is a darker side to gambling with which ancient civilisations were also well acquainted. The Rig Veda, a collection of Hindu religious hymns more than 3,000 years old, contains a section known as the Gambler’s Hymn which laments: “Without any fault of hers I have driven my devoted wife away because of a die exceeding by one [an unsuccessful bet]. My mother-in-law hates me; my wife pushes me away. In his defeat the gambler finds none to pity him. No one has use for a gambler, like an aged horse put up for sale.”

Advertisement

Monica - Age: 25 - Lab Technician
Single and looking. Email me
As the newly single poet above had just discovered, the numbers make most forms of gambling a mug’s game. The odds of winning the jackpot in America’s richest lottery, Mega Millions, is one in 176m. EuroMillions, available to players in nine western European countries, offers slightly better odds: one in 76m. Roulette players, on average, will hit their number once in 36 or 37 attempts. Poker players’ chances of being dealt a royal flush are much the same as being struck by lightning.

A majority sport

Yet hope never dies. In 2007 nearly half of America’s population and over two-thirds of Britain’s bet on something or other. Hundreds of millions of lottery tickets are sold every week. The global gambling market is estimated to be worth around $335 billion a year (see chart 1). Last year Las Vegas alone raked in gambling revenues of $10.4 billion and Macau $14.7 billion.

For Las Vegas, that represents a decline in revenue from 2008. By contrast, revenues from online gambling continue to rise. H2 Gambling Capital, a consultancy that monitors the global gambling market, estimates online gambling revenues in 2009 at around $26 billion (see chart 2). The world’s gambling centres are no longer just Vegas, Macau and Monaco; they now also include Alderney, Gibraltar, Antigua and Malta, whose favourable tax systems make them irresistible homes for internet-based companies.

Thanks to these companies the old restrictions have started to crumble. Government prohibition of online gambling has worked about as well as prohibition of other online content, which is to say it is observed mainly in the breach. America remains the world’s biggest single online gambling market by far, despite the passage in 2006 of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA)—a provision tacked onto a port-security bill that prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an online gambling site. After the ban some established sites closed down their American operations, but others filled the void. Americans are gambling roughly the same amount online as they did in 2006.

The move online threatens some traditional forms of gambling, such as betting on horses, but appears to benefit others, such as slot machines and lotteries. And bricks-and-mortar expansion still continues. The latest addition to the Las Vegas Strip, CityCenter, opened last December. Covering 76 acres (31 hectares) and costing around $8.5 billion, it is the largest privately funded construction project in American history. Thirty-three American states have casinos (many of them operated by around 200 Native American tribes), as do more than 20 countries across Europe. The Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which owns the Venetian casinos in Las Vegas and Macau, opened Marina Bay Sands in Singapore in April. Sheldon Adelson, Sands’s chief executive, believes that Asia can easily accommodate “five to ten Las Vegases”.

In the past ten years gambling has changed more than in the previous 70. The internet has forced existing businesses to adapt, opened up new opportunities and fundamentally altered the political, economic, corporate and moral climate in which these businesses operate. This special report will trace those changes through the main forms of gambling, which sadly will mean neglecting strong but local passions such as greyhound racing, bingo, jai alai and cricket fights. It will begin with Mr Moneymaker’s game.

SOURCE: The Economist

China wishes more investment from Germany

SOURCE: monstersandcritics.com
Berlin - Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday appealed for more investment from Germany and increased bilateral trade, ahead of a visit to Berlin as part of his European trip.

The German and Chinese economies were 'highly complementary,' Li wrote in a guest article for daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

'The long-term, stable and rapid development of the Chinese economy and the entrenchment of reforms ... will offer new chances for our cooperation in economics, trade and beyond,' wrote Li, who is responsible for finance and economic reform in China.

He said China hoped to attract investment in agriculture, environmental protection and new energy markets, as well as new and high-tech products.

'We hope the EU will loosen its export restrictions for high-tech products to China,' Li added.

Advertisement

Monica - Age: 25 - Lab Technician
Single and looking. Email me
At the same time, he called on Germany to relax conditions for Chinese entrepreneurs to enter the German market.

'At present, 4,500 German companies are investing and doing business in China. We would be happy ... if conditions for investments and setting up business could be improved for Chinese companies in Germany,' Li wrote.

Li, 55, who has been billed as a future successor to Premier Wen Jiabao, is due to meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle during his three-day visit.

He was due to arrive Thursday from Spain and travel on to Britain from Germany.

Li stressed that China remained the world's largest developing country, where 150 million lived on less than a dollar a day, and infrastructure such as roads and drinking water were severely lacking in many rural areas.

'We need to restructure the distribution of income, improve public services and build up a social security network ... to release the consumption potential of the population which numbers more than a billion,' he wrote.

He stressed the 'fundamental role of the market in the distribution of resources,' as well as a need to 'strengthen the momentum and vitality of the economy.'

Against the background of the global financial crisis, Li said China would stick to its 'mutually beneficial' strategy of opening up its markets.

China would improve legislation and investment policies to 'protect intellectual property and create a stable, orderly transparent and predictable market environment,' Li added.

In recent years China overtook Germany as the world's leading export economy. Bilateral trade for 2010 is expected to exceed 140 billion dollars (105 billion euros), almost 30 per cent of China's trade with the EU, according to Li.

Why isn't it easy to invest in Facebook when we represent Facebook ?

SOURCE: Washington Post
When it comes to investing, Facebook is not for the masses
By Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 4, 2011; 10:23 PM

Remember all that hype during the 1990s about the "democratization of finance" - how middle-class Americans with their mutual funds and 401(k)s were joining the "money class"?

Two booms and busts later, it should be obvious that the world of finance is still as rigged for insiders as it ever was. The latest proof comes with the news that Goldman Sachs has invested $450 million in the hottest company on the planet, Facebook, with the right to invest an additional $1.5 billion solicited from the roster of rich clients in its wealth-management division. The $2 billion should be enough to keep even a fast-growing company in cash for quite some time.

So if you've been hoping to get in on the ground floor of the social network's much-anticipated initial public offering, you might want to take to heart the advice recently offered by Facebook's young founder, Mark Zuckerberg, when asked about an IPO: "Don't hold your breath."

Goldman is hardly the first blue-chip investor in Facebook. The first wave included some of the biggest names in venture capital - Peter Thiel and his partners at the Founders Fund, Jim Breyer and his colleagues at Accel Partners, and the investors at Greylock Partners. Then came Microsoft; Asia's top billionaire, Li Ka-shing; and Bono and his colleagues at Elevation Partners. Then, last year, Facebook tapped into Russian coffers with an investment from steel-and-telecom oligarch Alisher Usmanov and his holding company, Digital Sky Technologies.

(Full disclosure: The Facebook board of directors now includes Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham.)

With each new wave of private investment, Facebook has gained not only the cash it needed to grow but also the cachet to lure still more high-profile investors. And with each round, the company's estimated market capitalization reached another eye-popping milestone such as this week's $50 billion valuation.

It's pretty clear that Facebook could achieve an even higher valuation through a public stock offering, but Zuckerberg and his directors know that's not how the smart game is played. Rather, the better strategy is for the hot company and its hot investors to play off each other's reputations, creating such excitement and pent-up demand for Facebook shares that when the public offering finally comes, the full value has already been captured by insiders - and the first wave of public shareholders can be played for suckers. Think of it as a sophisticated update of the old "pump-and-dump" strategy.

In the meantime, many of the insiders are reaping immediate benefits. The venture capitalists are leveraging their Facebook success to lure new investors. The share prices of Microsoft and the publicly traded arm of Digital Sky Technologies have shot up. And Goldman is anticipating $60 million in fees for placing its clients' money in Facebook plus a cut of 5 percent from any profit they earn - that, along with hundreds of millions of dollars it will almost certainly collect as the lead underwriter for the Facebook stock offering, whenever it finally occurs.

Advertisement

Monica - Age: 25 - Lab Technician
Single and looking. Email me
It's not just Facebook that is following this new strategy. So are Groupon and Twitter and game maker Zynga. By keeping it an insiders' game for as long as possible, the founders and the insiders will capture most of the long-term value of companies whose dominant market positions are likely to prove short-lived as new technologies come along. An IPO will probably mark the high-water mark in terms of the growth rate of these firms, although investors are almost certain to believe otherwise.

Securities laws are designed to protect outside investors from this kind of manipulation. Any company that takes on 500 investors is supposed to make full public disclosures about all of its activities, just like a publicly traded company. But those clever Wall Street lawyers have figured out that if dozens or even scores of rich investors pool their money and buy their shares through a special-purpose vehicle or a private-equity fund, then each group can be considered a single investor. The Securities and Exchange Commission is not so sure, but if recent rulings are any indication, the courts are likely to buy into this fiction.

Of course, we've seen this movie before. During the tech-and-telecom boom of the late 1990s, Wall Street firms rigged the game by using analysts to overhype the prospects of the companies they were taking public and allocating most of the initial shares to themselves and their rich clients. What's going on now is just an updated variation.

I'm not sure there is anything to do about this "injustice" other than to expose it. After all, nobody promised that financial markets would be fair to the average investor. In a free country and a free market, successful companies such as Facebook ought to be free to sell their shares to whomever they want, whenever they want, at whatever price they can get, as long as they don't misrepresent what they are doing or their results.

At the same time, the rest of us should understand that the world of finance and investment continues to be rigged in favor of insiders and those rich enough to have access to the best investment opportunities. The "democratization of finance" has proven to be nothing more than a marketing ploy to give investment houses and money managers a bigger opportunity to pick the pockets of the middle class. And while I can't quantify it, I'm fairly certain this disparity of investment opportunities and outcomes has made a significant contribution to the widening gap in income and wealth between the super-rich and everyone else in America.

So, yes, let's celebrate the ingenuity and success of companies such as Facebook and enjoy the cool new services they provide. But let's also remember that by the time those companies' shares are available to the rest of us, most of the financial bonanza will have already been captured by someone else.

What are the best and worst jobs ?

SOURCE: Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 5, 2011, 8:50 A.M. ET
By JOE LIGHT

Software engineer Jesse Severe says he can pretty much throw a dart on a map and find a job. The 41-year-old from San Diego says he's contacted by headhunters at least once a month, at times has been able to work from home for half his workweek and makes a comfortable living.

All those factors and others landed software engineer in the No. 1 spot on a newly-released study of the 200 best and worst jobs by CareerCast.com, a career website owned by Adicio Inc. (Until last year, Wall Street Journal owner News Corp. held a minority stake in Adicio.)

CareerCast rated 200 jobs based on income, working environment, stress, physical demands and job outlook, based on data from the Labor Dept. and U.S. Census and researchers' own expertise.

Software engineer overtook last year's top job, actuary, which fell to number 3, behind mathematician. The rise was mainly due to a robust hiring outlook, attributable in part to the rising popularity of social media and mobile applications, said Tony Lee, publisher of CareerCast and JobsRated.com. Last year, software engineer placed second.

Mr. Severe, who helps design flight-training software at ProFlight LLC, started out in the 1990s as a graphic designer, but moved into software design after seeing how much money his computer programming colleagues made.

"My job's flexible, pays well and gives [me] a lot of job satisfaction," he says.

Mr. Severe says his salary is in line with what most software engineers at his level earn. Most earn a typical mid-level income of about $87,000 and top out at $132,000, according to the study, putting them in the top 25 of all professions by income.

The highest-paid job was surgeon, with a typical midlevel income of $365,000 and a top-level salary of $440,000. The lowest paid were bartenders, waiters, cashiers and dishwashers, all of which make about $18,000 per year at mid-level.

In addition to the typical rewards of a high salary at a stable company, some software engineers dream of hitting it big with their own company. Del Stewart, 49, of Escondido, Calif. founded his own software company, OCI Retail Computer Sciences, in 1984 and is now starting a new company webCommuniti.com, a social networking website, that he's bringing online this month. Revenue at OCI, which helps video rental companies manage sales and inventory, topped out at about $2 million, per year in the mid-1990s, but has petered out with that industry, Mr. Stewart says.

Founding a new company "is a challenge, but that's why entrepreneurs do it. It's like asking a boxer if he's happy getting himself beat to death. It's stressful, but it's also fulfilling," he says.

Some software engineers say it can be difficult to stay current on all the computer languages companies want employees to know. "You can't think that you'll learn a skill now and that it will still be relevant in six months," says Mr. Severe.

The job can also be lonely. Many software engineers are able to work from home and have flexible hours, but that can mean they spend long hours without interacting with colleagues, he says. "The isolation and being chained to your desk can get to you a bit," he says.

Software engineer was the 15th-least stressful job in the study, based on factors such as deadlines, quotas and required precision.

The least stressful job, according to the study, was that of a bookbinder--though not all bookbinders would agree.

Jack Fitterer, 58, a bookbinder in Indian Lake, N.Y., says he's able to manage the challenges of his work by making sure he never embarks on a project he can't perform.

Advertisement

Monica - Age: 25 - Lab Technician
Single and looking. Email me
Mr. Fitterer, who specializes in restoration, says his days typically involve rebuilding the deteriorated bindings of old books, some of which date back to the 15th century. That means if he makes a mistake, the work could be lost forever, he says.

"That is real stressful," says his wife, Taff, who also works in the business. "Every move you make is like 'Oh my God, I might destroy this.'" The Fitterers haven't made a mistake yet that they couldn't correct, they say.

The job won't make you rich. According to the study, the midlevel income of bookbinders is about $31,000. But Mr. Fitterer says he's never at a loss for work.

For the second year in a row, roustabout was CareerCast's lowest-rated job. Roustabouts typically do entry-level work on oil rigs and pipelines, performing tasks like general maintenance and loading and unloading trucks in an environment that can often be dangerous. On average, roustabouts make about $32,000 a year, performing one of the study's most physically demanding jobs with one of the worst career outlooks, according to CareerCast.

Still, it's not a job that most roustabouts plan to spend their whole career in, notes 23-year-old roustabout Charles Walters of Shreveport, La. After spending three years doing roustabout work, Mr. Walters plans to go back to college in the fall to complete a degree in geology. "I see it as a way to break into the oil field," he says.

And while Mr. Walters's last job was at an oil company in Louisiana, he says that if he's able to find work on an offshore oil rig, he can make three to four times the $2,000 per month he made at his last job. Mr. Walters said he's not discouraged from the job by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, but that before he accepts a new job he'll look up the company's safety record to make sure they're not getting poor reviews.

"When you go near oil, it's going to be dangerous, but we know what we're getting into," he says.

Ivy league schools and fortune 500 CEOs

Source: Bloomberg Business Week

Harvard, Columbia, Penn Claim Most Fortune 500 CEOs

Posted by: Louis Lavelle on January 4, 2011

U.S. News and World Report recently studied the educational credentials of Fortune 500 CEOs and concluded that (1) Ivy League schools produce a disproportionate share, (2) big state schools aren’t too shabby either, and (3) just three schools—Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania—account for nearly 100 graduate and undergraduate degrees among the corporate bigwigs.

Advertisement

Monica - Age: 25 - Lab Technician
Single and looking. Email me
It should probably come as no surprise by now that an MBA is definitely not a prerequisite for a corner office job. Of the 500 CEOs in the U.S. News study only 174 have MBAs. What’s more fascinating is that nearly 200 have no graduate degrees and 19 have no college degree at all.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison lived up to its reputation as a school that churns out CEOs by the dozen. With 17 degrees among the Fortune 500 CEOs, it came out ahead of Dartmouth, Stanford, Northwestern and a host of other top schools.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the educational credentials of top CEOs, including some of Bloomberg Businessweek’s own. But I’m left wondering if the alma maters of CEOs have anything to do with their success in the business realm. If schools do matter, I also wonder to what extent academics set young men and women on a path to the C-suite, and to what extent it’s the raw intelligence they had from the get-go or the connections they made hobnobbing with similarly brilliant people. I also don’t know what to make of the fact that the list of colleges claiming members of Congress as alumni bears little resemblance to the CEO list. Thoughts?

How to maximize the value of your MBA

Source: Walletpop.com
By Charles Taylor
Jan 4th 2011 at 9:00AM
Filed under: Money College, Career, School

Advancing your business career in this job market can be a challenge. According to a Business Week poll, only 38% of senior business majors reported having a job offer in January. That compares with 46% in 2009 and 56% in 2008. New jobs figures indicate that the national unemployment rate has risen from 9.6% to 9.8% and this rate has been over 9% for 19 consecutive months.

Many business students are looking into advanced degrees like an MBA. "There's the idea that when the economy is lagging and jobs are scarce that you can hideout in business school for a few years," says David Ingber, the faculty manager at Knewton GMAT prep. "Having an MBA can make your resumé pop out to employers or make you eligible for a promotion within your company."

Taking the plunge to go back to school is a huge financial commitment. The average cost of business school tuition is $100,000. That figure does not include cost of living, time out of the workforce or additional interest from deferred undergraduate loans. However, the payoff also can be huge, with MBA's from top schools earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.

How can you calculate the value of an MBA to you? "It's very difficult to calculate, says Ingber, "It depends on the person you are and can depend on the school you go to."

Marketing yourself can be key to maximizing the value of your degree. "Schools want to be diverse ethnically, geographically and with student interests," says Ingber, "A strong applicant is someone who can bring something new to the table."

Advertisement

Monica - Age: 25 - Lab Technician
Single and looking. Email me
How you present yourself during the application process also is extremely important, especially in the age of the Internet. "Everyone has an online persona at this point," says Ingber. "You want to be very aware of everything you are putting out there, because everything can be immediately verified."

Choosing the right school also can help maximize the value of your MBA. "Business schools have different networks--some local, some global," he said. "People go to schools for the networking portion because knowing more people in business can be really good for you."

Think business school is the right move for your career? Dust off your brilliant business idea, hide your drunken college photos and network your way to success. The second round of business school admission deadlines are coming up in January.

Why is Russia Investing in Facebook?

Source: Allvoices.com
By Dorothy Marie Kucera
"The borrower is servant to the lender" is a Proverb that explains trouble ahead for Facebook and its multitude of users. All of our information and where we are each day is now partially owned by Russia as well as their new "partner," Goldman Sachs. ABC News shared the tragic betrayal news on the "Good Morning, America" show this morning, stating that Russia's company, Digital Sky Technologies, has put 200 million dollars on the table in return for a slim percentage partner ownership favor. Since Facebook's stock is reportedly "10 billion dollars," even a "1.96 per cent" return can multiply pocket change rapidly for Russia. Where, might I ask, does Russian plan to spend it? What else are they planning to do with this new mass of data control?

Read the linking article from the New York Times which explains that Russia is not allowed to be on the Facebook Board of Directors but people, we all know that a foot in the door IS a foot in the door. "The borrower IS servant to the Lender" so what demands, "favors out of courtesy to the Investor," will be made of Mark ZuckerbergMark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the near future? Go ahead, read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/technology/internet/27facebook.html?_r=1. Do some extrapolation.

Do Facebook leaders even read the news about what Russia is doing elsewhere in the world today? Have they all fallen prey to the prevailing philosophy lie that "Nothing bad will happen"? Why has Mark Zuckerberg gone to bed with the enemy of all things American around the world? Well, Facebook's reported answer in the New York Times article was a startling one. It seems that "79 per cent" of all Facebook users are from foreign nations and it has to do with transmission issues and those overseas' costs. It claims that Mr. Zuckerberg is thinking way ahead in the future, even admitting that Facebook does not need the money at this time.

Is his overconfident youthfulness starting to show grave mistakes now with a lack of doing his political current events' homework, thus leaving him uninformed, unconcerned and extremely vulnerable? Does he have any counselors wisely advising him about how Russia is undermining America in military operations and security? Does he know any facts at all about what has been happening the past few years with Russia helping Iran and other enemy nations who want to crush America? What is Mark Zuckerberg's background in history and current events' education? What is his personal philosophy of politics and how freedom should be protected? Does he even care or is all of that off the radar because today's youth have been fed a steady diet of jadedness and lies about what is really happening in the world and to us as a nation? How old are all of the Facebook Board members? What is their political view and philosophy? Does Mark really understand who they are, who their sympathies lie with in politics and international matters? Is this nightmare a matter of bad advice from them?

Is there a simpler reason why Facebook has sold us out to our enemy? Have they divorced themselves mentally from the ramifications of this "investment" coup, only wanting to focus on money, money, money? Have Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook Board made the fatal mistake of falling prey to "Flattery spreadeth a net"? I can just picture Russia mocking us, laughing behind our backs, celebrating their great triumph at infiltrating one of America's greatest social networking companies at such a dangerous time in history, taking advantage of men who were too young to know they were being tricked.

It is time to pull out the history books and connect the dots. Drop everything else. See and fear the "handwriting on the wall" in what you have done to all of America and to our soldiers around the world. Return the money with documented proof and trustworthy legal witnesses, rip up the contracts and pay whatever is necessary to get yourself out of this trap and reinstate yourselves as free Americans. Never place yourself in a corner in a chess game; it is bad, bad business to have an enemy nation in your camp. Cry out to God to help you untangle yourselves. This situation is a mess; clean it up fast.

I like Mark Zuckerberg from what I saw and heard on his extended television interview with ABC in recent weeks. He is highly gifted, I raised a gifted son and taught other gifted youth and I think analytically in a gifted way, so I do understand how his mind is playing out business decisions decades down the road. However, you cannot isolate business from politics. They are chokingly intertwined. You have to do the homework when it comes to playing with the Big Boys in Russia and at Goldman Sachs, also. Don't fall prey to the idea that this move will soften them. It is a trap, big time.

By the way, what is the connection between Goldman Sachs and Russia, both partnering to invest in Facebook? Another reporter needs to follow that trail, also. How many enemies are in high position in companies across our land? http://www.economyincrisis.org has already listed multitudes of American companies who have sold themselves to foreign nations, some of whom quietly sold their holdings to enemy nations. Has anyone noticed an influx of new corporate leaders and their origin?

Can our fearless leader, Mark Z., get out of this in time? I am reminded of the Proverb, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Not money but the all-consuming love of it. As you say, you don't need it. Be content with the great success already awarded to you by your fans. Don't sell us out, please. Remember, great leaders have learned the lesson of humility. God promises you that if you do the right thing in His eyes, He will reward you. "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." The opposite is also true, "Pride goeth before destruction." Don't worry about what anyone might think or say...reverse this decision, cancel the acceptance of the money from Russia and from Goldman Sachs. Don't misplace your trust...it is too valuable a commodity. Run, do not walk, to the nearest, older, wise counselors...find those of us who really care for you and for Facebook who understand the big picture about what is happening worldwide...you need their support to extricate yourself from something too big for you and the Board.
Dorothy Marie Kucera is based in Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America, and is Anchor for Allvoices