My Day of Atonement
First off - this is not designed to make light of the holiest of Jewish holidays. Believe me, I have spent (and will spend even more) quality time reflecting on those things I’ve done in the past year that I regret, people whose feelings I’ve hurt, ways in which I could have been a better and more considerate husband, father, and friend. Yom Kippur is a heavy, heavy holiday, and for good reason. As my readers know I am big on catharsis, and there is nothing like thinking deep thoughts about how you can do and be better coupled with starvation to make one feel cathartic.
However, I thought I’d take a moment on this (sleepless) evening to reflect on those I may have hurt during my brief tenure in the blogosphere, and to ask for forgiveness in order that I might start this New Year with a clean slate and a pure spirit:
Jason Fang and SocialPicks: Guys, regrets if I seemed kind of harsh. While I certainly believe deeply in the points I made during our dialogue and I do think your model has serious flaws, I probably could have been a little nicer and more constructive in my criticism. Sorry, dudes.
Nick Maounis and Amaranth: Nick, I know you’ve had kind of a hard year, and yes, I piled on during your time of intense suffering. First on my blog, then in Reuters and finally on NPR. And for this I feel really bad. But dude, come on, you’ve got some atoning to do yourself. But really, that’s got to come from you.
Christopher Cox and the SEC: Now Chris, I’ve said a lot of good stuff about you but some kind of harsh stuff as well. I’ve made fun of your agency on more than one occasion, which really isn’t very nice. I promise I’ll try to be less sarcastic in the coming year with respect to the SEC’s stance on hedge fund regulation and all matters regulatory, and to be more affirming when you and the agency do really good stuff (like that whole XBRL thing). Really I think you’re a cool dude. For a regulator.
Intel: I know, I know, things change and volatility assumptions underlying stock option cost calculations should change with them. I realize I was kind of mean when highlighting the fact that you nearly halved your volatility assumption (dropping it from 50% to 26%) with a related benefit of reducing option costs by $519 million. I know that it seems like I was questioning your motivations for such a change. You make some rocking chips and I’m sure you dudes had your heart in the right place. Sorry for being so cynical. I guess I should just be a little more trusting.
Auditors: Sheesh, was I ever sarcastic when writing about you guys with respect to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s “audit practice alert” concerning employee stock options. I made it seem like you guys should have been on the ball and addressing your client’s poor practices around the “flexible” timing of option grants instead of retrospectively needing some alert to justify your existence. Really sorry, dudes. I guess sometimes my expectations are just way too high and that I place undue pressure on others. Like auditors. Who should, well, audit. Oops, I just did it again. Sorry.
The U.S. Patent Office: You lucky folks were the focus of my ire in not one but two posts. Really, I was lit not so much at the individuals at the USPO but at the U.S. patent system itself. Sorry if it seemed like I was actually flaming you. I know you are under-resourced, over-worked and under-appreciated. Well I think you are pretty cool dudes. It’s just that your bosses are idiots. Sorry. I shouldn’t have said that. See, I really need some work here.
Kevin Rose and Digg: Dude, really man, sorry. First I accuse you of manipulative editorial policies, then I criticize the re-jiggering of your model? I really was a sh*thead to you last year. I’ll try and be nicer this year, I promise. But can you try and fly straight here, pal? No more monkey business, ok? Atonement can be a two-way street, you know.
Stock spammers: Man, did I rip you guys good in a post a month or so ago. And I feel really bad about being so harsh when you are preying on people’s insecurities, inadequacies and fears. Hey, wait a minute, forget that. You guys aren’t dudes, you suck! Consider my apology rescinded.
Moody’s: I know you feel you are offering a much-needed product when you came up with the operational ratings system for hedge funds. And what did I do? Write a brutal post basically saying that the value you were adding for any number of reasons was little to none. Man, I can sure be an a*@hole sometimes. Really sorry, dudes. I mean, what could be cooler than reviewing hedge fund operations for a rating agency? Maybe working at the USPO?
So, upon reflection I guess I really did need to do some atoning in my blog life. Well, here it is, folks. Please accept my apologies and you have my commitment that I will try to do better in the coming year. All I ask from you is to be truthful, ethical, thoughtful and forward-thinking. Is that really too much to ask? Let’s all work together to make the Year 5767 a great one for us all, ok?
