Note: Talk with the Neuroscientist of UCSD

University system
: Rotation
: Recruit each department (including not only professors but also students)
: Refreshment of people is indispensable. ig) UCSF
: (master+phd) Salary, exempt from tuition, housing
    There is no creativity. Only input.=> seminars, networks, dissertations and then share with other people
    in Japan, it is difficult. Then, professors compel students to engage in massive laboring research. And it
    often leads to the futile result that is already discovered by other researchers.

理研 Bsi

Core Bio
=> cancer or ES
 cancer has reached an impasse.

Nature or Nurture
R2 =0.33
but fail to contain another DNA
(not only T,C,G,A but also inherit some protein and receiver)
Nurture includes too broad areas
needs to divide periods (language ~9 years old / Motor ~12years old)

New research Mouse
Orange light
Blue light
Red Light
=> turn on/off the switch related to every neuro systems.

depends on experience?
certain environment affects. without specific scent, it's gonna be possible to imitate?


Note: Morgan Stanley

Net Revenues: $ 31.6 bil (2010)
Total Non-interest revenues $30.7bil ()
Net income to c/s $3.59bil

Institutional Securities(mil)
Principal trading $8,154<=$6,591
Investment banking $4,295<= $4,455



Cash, short-term and long-term security SUM $ 97.6 billion (Dec 31 2012)

Sales$108,249 mil Net income $25,922mil

Even if I follow the more or less far-fetched estimate of Facebook, the Internet advertising market
will be $ 120 billion in 2015. Manufacturing is not gonna be profitable compared with software development, but its size of market seems mesmerizing.

Days sales of inventory 4.40 days (Sep 2011, )
Extraordinary(ref HP's DSI of cost of product equals 41.95 days)

Accrued expense
Deferred revenue
Vendor non-trade receivables <= just in time $6,348 mil (=> COGS $64,431?)


アメリカと日本のAnnual Report(有報)に対する姿勢の違い




なのでほぼ一緒です。UCLAではIntermediate Accounting がFARに相当しています。

市販のテキストもWiley Reviewと、既に勉強済みの人を対象としています。

ここでは有価証券報告書/ Annual Report のフォーマットの違いを挙げたいと思います。
有報/Annual Report(10K)の様式自体は似ているのですが、アメリカだと
Annual Reportの前に添付する形で、経営者からのメッセージなどを載せているケースが多くて

たとえば、Buffettで有名なBerkshire HathawayのAnnual Reportにおける
GoogleのAnnual Reportもfounder's letterがアラブの春にまで話題が及び読み物として楽しめました。




特に、最近倒産して(Chapter11を申請して)話題になったKodakですが、そのAnnual Reportを見ると
Year 2006では経営者がAnnual Reportに




Note: Coca Cola

Sales 35 bil dollars
days sales inventories 75 days
ROS 34%, OIOS 24% GP 64%

Mega deal CCE $2,511  mil

the plight of Coke
 customer need shifts from soda to still beverage
 less profitable, inventories


note: P & G

P&G 2011 June

sales $ 82 billion
Income from operating $ 15.8 bil
Net income       $11.7 bil

Weak Cash flows from operating activities
Surge in Inventories
=> manipulate?
COGS reverse effect
=> SG&A 25,973 / 82,559 = 31.4%

Fabric Care 22%
Beauty 20%
Baby Care & Family Care 18%

Accruals to Total Assets 1.35%
Operating accruals to CA 5.33%


Note: Facebook Form S-1 Registration Statement

Facebook is ready for IPO
S-1 Registration Statement

$3 billion sales =>$2 billion income from operation=> $1 billion net income

$37.9 bil sales => 11.7 bil income from operation => $9.7 bil net income

845 mil MAU from 608 mil, 100 bil   (google+ 90mil)
65 mil per day compared with American idol 29 mil watchers
P&G 9% 27 consecutive months ad

588 bil Advertising
     363 bil off the internet 62%
     on the Internet 68 bil => 120 bil

Foreign exchange rate
  129 mil Google Britain 3.2% lower, 834mil the rest of the world 5.1% lower
 Sales & Marketing 9.5% => 12.1% labor cost

The number of employee (from this site)
Google : 26k
Facebook:  2.25k

Executive compensation
Zuckerberg 1,487k  57.1% voting power (Stock B's voting power is ten times as Stock A)
Sandberg 30,873k
Ebersman  18,676k


Why do excellent managers fail if they listen to consultants and bankers?

Last week,  I read "The Innovator's Dilemma."
It's about why successful companies cannot catch up with new innovation.
The main thesis is that a company always needs to create new customers from new technology.
It is unique that he uses a lot of actual examples of the hard disk industry, the excavator industry,
the steel industry and so on to reveal how successful companies lost their outstanding ranking.

According to the author, the better management executives are, the more probable their companies fail
to catch up with the new technology.

He refers to such a new technology as "disruptive technology", because it creates new customers and new markets. It consists of three elements: cheep, plain, and the function not for mainstream customers.
When it comes to disruptive technology, it is fetal to enter the market of this technology. It is too late to
wait for this emerging market to enlarge enough.

However, excellent firms tend to overlook this opportunity though they have sufficient or much better
technology compared with start-ups.

Mainly, there are two reasons.
They're said from the point of view of consultants and of investment bankers.

Firstly, successful companies are inclined to listen to their main customers too carefully.
It is widely believed thought especially in terms of marketing consultants,
but it makes managers blind about step out to create new customers.
They keep inventing additional functions just for their mainstream customers.
The author calls this kind of network as Value Network.

Secondly, the pressure from investors forces managers to concentrate on only big and profitable markets.
This is because they need to retain their growth rate of sales or income to satisfy investors.
However, it makes it hard for them to try new market even if sometimes followed by failure.
At first, the market of disruptive technology is unknown to anybody and it is usually small.

Then, what do they do to keep up with disruptive innovation?
The author introduced RPV model.

RPV represents Resource, Process and Value.
Resource: Human resource, funding resource
Process: How to make a decision
Value: New value network

Then the author says it is appropriate to make suitable organization whose RPV is fitted to the disruptive technology market.

It is paradoxical and interesting.
Especially, I think it is objective that the author just observes a lot of cases of HD companies
and analyze it in a scientific way.
However, in terms of actual strategy, it seems far-fetched because he thinks just in his mind and
he does not introduce other point of view such as engineers, sales person or usual office workers.
Maybe he could not push his boundaries of top-down management of the US.