When owners begin to create their exit plans, they need to answer three critical questions.

When do you want to leave your company?
Who do you want to succeed you?
How much money do you need when you leave?
The answers to these questions fix a destination that all exit planning activities will work to reach.

Today, we are going to talk about an answer to the third that question that we hear from many owners: “I can live on a lot less income once I leave the business.”

Maybe you can. Maybe you can’t. Many owners assume that they can because they look back at their income needs over the years and assume that their needs will decrease—the children are gone, the house is paid off, etc.

Circumstances change but it is just as likely that your needs may increase. Tax rates and health care costs will increase. Few of us will enjoy perfect health until we die. The needs of our loved ones change as well. While we launch our children into the world, we often are called upon to meet the needs of aging parents.

None of us can predict how the world will affect our investment portfolios. Rising energy costs, new technologies, natural disasters, civil unrest, wars and terrorism can all play havoc with the most conservative portfolio.

To those who count on rent from the building they owned and plan to lease back to the buyer of their businesses, we ask, “What happens if the new owner can no longer pay?”

We are not soothsayers of doom and destruction but it would be irresponsible not to point out that active business owners are able to adapt to change more easily because they still control their source of income. Owners enjoy greater flexibility because their actions (working more, laying off personnel, reducing business expenses) directly affect their income. Once retired and dependent on investment income, your range of options is limited and those actions you can take often involve increasing your risk.

A solution?
One is to acquire considerably more assets than you think you need. Add this enhanced asset amount to the amount of money you want to receive when you leave your company. Have a large margin of error. Of course this is easier said than done.

To help accomplish this, you may need to stay in your company longer than you planned so you can grow business value or accumulate more money outside of the business and in your retirement account.

Another solution is to engage an experienced financial professional who can help you (1) analyze what you are spending now, (2) understand what your likely needs and wants are, and (3) anticipate future needs and sources and amounts of income. These professionals have access to large amounts of research and historical data. While no one can tell you how your investments may perform in the future, or what to expect on the world scene, they can help you assess risk.

Expert financial planning not only helps you assess risk but also helps you to determine the appropriate response to mitigate that risk—whether it be to build more value before you exit, delay your exit or realistically appraise the possibility that your lifestyle may need to be more modest.

Is it not worth your time, and perhaps some money, to help ascertain that your financial goals are realistic and that you can weather the unforeseen and unexpected? Because in today’s world, if it’s one thing we can be certain of – your circumstances and everyone else’s – will change.
The Exit Planning Review™

This is the eighth posting in a series of guest blogs that BFAD is featuring each Tuesday.  This week features Todd Harrison, Fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).

Avoiding a GM-Style Bailout for the Department of Defense

By Todd Harrison

Secretary Gates said recently: “If the Department of Defense can’t figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes. “  He has a point.  The problems in the defense budget are much bigger than the recent debates over buying more F-22s, cancelling the Presidential Helicopter, or building an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  In fact, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) problems are eerily similar to the challenges General Motors faced a year ago.

First, consider the labor cost structure of both GM and DoD.  Noncash and deferred compensation for GM employees, such as healthcare and retirement pensions, accounted for 46% of total compensation in 2006—far higher than the private sector average of just 29%, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  In comparison, noncash and deferred compensation for active-duty troops in the US military is 52% of total compensation, according to the Government Accountability Office—an even higher share than GM.  Military healthcare alone, not including veterans’ healthcare, costs over $47 billion each year, nearly one tenth of the DoD base budget.  At the current rate of growth, these costs will nearly double every ten years.

Another similarity between the two is that both organizations are in a period of disruptive change in the competitive environment.  In GM’s case, its market share rapidly eroded as gas prices climbed higher, the economy slowed, and consumers turned to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.  GM found itself building a fleet of SUVs and trucks that consumers did not want and could not afford.  Similarly, DoD now finds itself saddled with a number of weapon programs whose capabilities are ill-suited for the types of conflict the military currently faces and whose costs have risen beyond what the Department can afford.  Many of the new weapons being funded today are optimized for middle-of-the-spectrum conflicts—that is, conventional, military-on-military conflicts such as Operation Desert Storm in 1991.  But adversaries are well aware of the United States’ overwhelming advantage in the middle and are instead moving to either end of the spectrum: irregular warfare on one end and high-end, asymmetric warfare on the other.  The challenge for DoD, as it was for GM, is that the competition is adapting faster than it can keep up.

A telling example is the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), an amphibious vehicle designed to move Marines from ship to shore and then, once on land, to serve as a ground combat vehicle.  In a high-end conflict against a sophisticated adversary, the ships launching the EFV from sea would likely not be able to get the EFV within range of the shoreline because they would be vulnerable to attack by anti-ship missiles, rendering the EFV useless.  On land, the vehicle’s flat bottom is vulnerable to roadside bombs, making it unsuitable for irregular warfare as well.

Moreover, just as the slowing economy complicated GM’s efforts to revitalize its business, the state of the overall federal budget will prevent DoD from spending its way out of these problems.  Deficits are at record levels, and OMB projects that interest payments will rise at a real rate of 13% annually over the next ten years.  If these trends continue, by 2018 interest payments on the national debt ($725 billion) will exceed total national defense spending ($698 billion) for the first time in modern history.  President Obama’s plan for the base defense budget slows growth over the coming years, but it nevertheless puts him on track to spend more on defense in a single four-year term than any other president since World War II, adjusting for inflation.  The combination of record deficits, soaring interest payments, and an already high level of defense spending makes any significant increase in the defense budget unlikely.

As a result, the Department of Defense must make some difficult decisions.  If the overall defense budget remains relatively flat over the coming years, continued increases in personnel-related costs will crowd out funding for acquisitions.  Rather than accept this as inevitable, DoD should begin taking steps to rein in personnel costs.  For example, few employers today offer pensions (i.e. defined-benefit plans) and healthcare benefits for retirees—much less a package that becomes effective after only 20 years of service.  But in the US military, people who enlist at 18 can retire and begin drawing a pension at only 38 years of age and have healthcare coverage for themselves and their dependents for life—while continuing to work full-time in a second career.  Even GM’s much-derided labor contracts did not provide benefits this rich.  While changes to these benefits, such as increasing the time-in-service required before retirement or increasing insurance premiums for retirees, would be politically difficult, more modest changes could also help begin to control costs.  For example, once deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan begin to subside, the number of troops could be reduced to pre-war levels, rather than maintaining a larger standing military indefinitely at what the CBO estimates will cost $14 billion per year.  DoD also spends $4 billion each year moving members of the military (and their families and possessions) between bases.  Rather than uprooting families every couple of years, DoD could cut the number of moves in half and save $2 billion each year.

But personnel costs are only one part of the equation.  The Pentagon must also rethink the types of weapons it is buying and how it buys them.  Over the past decade, DoD has attempted to develop new weapons that are more complex and costly than it can afford, leading to lower quantities procured and a backlog of systems now in need of replacement or upgrade.  The ratio of funding for procurement versus research and development (R&D) in the base defense budget bears this out, having fallen from a high in 1983 of 3.5 dollars spent on procurement for every dollar spent on R&D to the current level of 1.4 to 1.  The F-22 program is a good example of this: R&D costs rose by some 50% while the quantity procured fell from 750 to just 187.  If DoD does not learn to control R&D costs—and its appetite for “exquisite” systems—programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may end up in a similar situation.

The challenges GM faced a year ago are instructive for DoD today.  The Department is fundamentally on an unsustainable path, and a sharp change in direction is needed to correct its course.  A massive infusion of funding in excess of the current defense plan—a DoD “bailout” of sorts—would only delay the inevitable day of reckoning, much like giving more loans to GM without restructuring the company.  Instead, as the Defense Department finalizes its budget request for FY 2011, it must rethink both its personnel costs and weapons programs—and understand the tradeoffs between the two.  While there are no easy solutions, the sooner these decisions are made the less painful they will be to carry out.

A favourite game of entrepreneurs, especially in the technology industry is discussing whether companies are worth the price they are bought out for. $1.5 billion  for Youtube ………. Sales prices with infinite price earnings multiples (because there are no earnings, or they are loss making). Versus a company being sold for a few times it’s annual earnings with a long period of earnings history.

A more relevant discussion would be which school of business valuation was used during the transaction, and there are two:

1. Sale price representing believed potential

2. Sale price representing return on investment reality

Which is more valid? Well it depends on which side of the equation you are residing. I’d say when selling, we should be aiming for potential. When buying we should go with reality. When buying a business the simplest question to ask ourselves is this:

On current earnings, how many years will it take me to get back my original investment.

There’s no doubt certain industries are more likely to sell using the potential valuation method. Burgeoning industries like the internet, IPO’s and even railways 200 years ago are good examples. To get away with selling on ‘potential’ the industry needs to be growing, the future unknown and your company well known. If your startup ever gets enough traction to sell to an incumbent, then take what you can get – sell on potential.

Friends,

The markets at this time last year were dithering but were at almost the same level as today. The news flow with all the gory details of what had happened in USA were were yet to form a steady flow. The markets tumbled in October 08 with a ferocity unheard of in earlier times ever. Then there were the rescueing acts, put together by almost all the world’s economy masters.

We are now at a juncture that while the wounds of past year still pain but the atmosphere has changed perceptibly for the better. In India it has come in the form of benign interest rates and easier availability of consumer finance. It is for this main reason that the auto-sector has seen alround expansion in sale volumes at higher per unit value. This spurred the demand for flat steel which has emboldened the steel maker to hike steel prices. The auto component maker have had a sigh of relief too.

Now we see that the big chunks of shares change hands at handsome premium to prevailing prices. This suggests that there is demand for shares even at a premium. Any company that has such transactions in respect of its equity shares, also forces the markets to rerate the peer companies. I see that this will keep happenning due to the fact that the very may Indian companies are selling for part of their real values. Also there is going to be attempts at mergers and aquisitions which will make the different segments of market more organised and will reduce marketing and distribution costs.

The dividend yields have gone up. There is no capacity creation rush which secured the near term future of companies. In fact the advantage India lies in the fact that there is no excess capacities here while in China there will be tough fight for survival. We therefore, remain a more preferred destination for the world’s money flows. Even China itself may want buy a part of Indian cake, after capital seeks safety and return, first and foremost.

In this light would it be wrong for me to declare that Nifty will march past its previous peak at some time in not so distant future.

HariOm,
krsnaKhandelwal

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy will be getting superhero friends quite soon.  Disney has announced that it will be purchasing Marvel Entertainment (comics, movies, yes..the whole company) for $4 Billion in a combination of cash and stock purchase. Pending paperwork and other details, the deal is expected to be fully done within the year.

In  official statements, according to Disney:

“This transaction combines Marvel’s strong global brand and world-renowned library of characters including Iron Man, Spider-Man, X-Men, Captain America, Fantastic Four and Thor with Disney’s creative skills, unparalleled global portfolio of entertainment properties, and a business structure that maximizes the value of creative properties across multiple platforms and territories,” said Robert A. Iger, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company. “Ike Perlmutter and his team have done an impressive job of nurturing these properties and have created significant value. We are pleased to bring this talent and these great assets to Disney.”

according to Marvel:

“Disney is the perfect home for Marvel’s fantastic library of characters given its proven ability to expand content creation and licensing businesses,” said Ike Perlmutter, Marvel’s Chief Executive Officer. “This is an unparalleled opportunity for Marvel to build upon its vibrant brand and character properties by accessing Disney’s tremendous global organization and infrastructure around the world.”

On a related note, most of Marvel’s blockbuster franchise movies are still tied up with studios so Disney won’t be making any superhero films just yet. Marvel’s CEO Ike Perlmutter will still get to run Marvel.

The fanbase on the other hand is mostly outraged as people are worried about seeing baby versions of their superheroes and maybe seeing Donald Duck VS The Hulk.

Here are some fan-made videos and mashups. Enjoy!

by Tim Wollweber

by Matt Brooks

by Matt Ochuizo

by A. David Lewis

by Via

by Matt Moylan

Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz (left) and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (right) signs the deal with a giant pen

This is one of those news that already happened before I even put my blog up but its interesting enough that I wanted to post it out there for those that haven’t heard yet.  Yes folks, Yahoo! has officially sold their search engine business to Microsoft.

So what does this really mean?

What this really means is that Yahoo! will still have a search function on their site. What just happens when you search something is that it will be Microsoft’s technology working its magic and not Yahoo!’s. The site will be powered by Microsoft’s own search engine–Bing. If you search on Bing and on Yahoo!, you will get the same results. Yahoo’s will just have a “powered by Bing”.

So where will be the future of Yahoo! and Microsoft on this matter?

Yahoo will concentrate on it being a portal and being the site everyone wants to go to for all the other services like mail, groups, special interests. It just needs to have a search function but does not want to handle that side of the business anymore.

Microsoft will be focusing on promoting Bing and its ad-serving technologies to compete with Google. Having this deal adds value to advertising on Bing as it gets both customers searching on Bing and Yahoo!

Why did they do this?

From Yahoo!’s point of view, they feel that people go to their site to do other things like check email, horoscopes, rather than the search engine as a primary purpose. As such, by selling it, Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz feel that the deal enables them to have a healthy revenue stream to invest on critical areas to their future while Microsoft can focus on search.

From Microsoft’s point of view, they wanted to have a stronger competitive platform to compete with Google. By buying Yahoo! they would now have an estimated 30% of the market compared to Google’s 70%. This gives them a much better footing.

How much did it cost?

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. What happens is that Microsoft will be paying Yahoo! 88% of the ad revenues coming from ads on Yahoo! for the next 5 years. Microsoft further guarantees Yahoo that it will earn equal or more than it currently does for the next one and a half years. Not a bad deal considering Microsoft originally wanted to buy it for $45 billion back in 2008. Today, it doesn’t have to pay anything outright and as they pay Yahoo! with revenue generated from Yahoo’s own site.

And oh, Microsoft gets exclusive rights for 10 years to Yahoo!’s search engine technology. After that its pretty much unclear. But given it has Bing, its really just to be sure Microsoft will have control.

So when is this going to happen?

The deal has already been confirmed and is expected to complete by early 2010. There is still alot of paperwork and signatures to get in order. The implementation is expected to take another 3-6 months so we should be seeing Yahoo search powered by Microsoft in mid 2010. The ads listings will take another 2 years so everything fully integrated should be by year 2012. Just right on time for the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar predictions.

Governments should restrain art acquisitions

And you thought Washington politics was full of corruption and questionable behavior. Take a look at the art world; it’s just as rife with lack of ethics and illegalities.

Case in point: For the past few years the J. Paul Getty Trust, in charge of the huge museum in Malibu, Calif., has suffered bitter blows to its reputation. Although it is a gorgeous, classically designed, 110-acre museum overlooking the southern California coast, its leadership has left much to be desired. Chief Executive Officer Barry Munitz resigned early in 2006 for misuse of the funds.

In his situation, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s investigations of the museum confirmed the rumors Munitz paid his wife’s traveling expenses from Getty funds and used trust employees to run personal errands. Munitz also wined and dined retiring board members at five-star restaurants. Munitz also failed to report selling some trust property, and did not allow it to be publicized in order to get other bids.

Then there are the shenanigans of Marion True, the museum’s former antiquities curator. She’s on trial in Italy for conspiring to traffic in looted antiquities. In her case, Italy wants the Getty Museum to return to them 52 antiquities costing $48 million. It’s quite possible True could be severely punished for her wallowing in the illegally obtained antiquities trade.

The Greek government wants to press charges against True and the Getty Museum for illegally possessing ancient artifacts that belong to Greece.

Obviously, Lockyer had to make some tough choices about the museum, which operates on a $250 million budget and employees 1,500 people full-time. To this corporate bonanza Louise Bryson stepped in to head the Getty Trust. She’s also an executive for Lifetime Television and has been on the Getty Museum board since 1998. Still, Lockyer has the last word on the museum’s activities and appointed former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp to oversee the trust.

The hardest thing for the museum to live down will be the return of what are rumored to be stolen antiquities. In July the museum returned — after 10 years of begging from Greece — a fifth-century B.C. votive relief stolen from an archeological warehouse and a fourth-century B.C. carved tombstone, bought in 1993 for $5.2 million. Not only that, Marion True was the one who acquired, along with the tombstone, a gold funeral wreath and carved marble torso.

All of the above scenario rings like an “Indiana Jones” movie, minus the heroics and special effects, but nevertheless, it’s enough to make one’s head spin watching millions of dollars spin around the world just to snatch up a priceless ancient artifact.

This leads to the larger question of the lack of ethics and control swirling throughout the art world. We all hear of the businessman who buys a painting done by Van Gogh or Monet, plopping down millions of dollars at an auction, then stashes this art in a private collection. Never again will the public have a chance to view these artist’s originals. Nor can the public have the opportunity to see history’s great works unless a museum relents and offers the artifacts for public viewing.

What it comes down to is the art world is making a fortune. The value of art or ancient artifacts no longer lies with its antiquity or genius. Its importance is based on sheer monetary value, and there’s so much money to be made that some art dealers, such as the former Getty Museum board members, don’t care if that wealth and value is obtained unethically or illegally.

I doubt many of the world’s governments will restrain art acquistions. Look at it this way; most governments can get a hefty sum to finance themselves if they sell something priceless or antique to the highest bidder. A government is paid handsomely, one way or another, if it doesn’t restrict a dealer from selling something at a high price to a museum that is literally slavering at the thought of owning something found in the Bronze Age or a tombstone from ancient Greece.

Which means countries wanting their art and artifacts back are being a bit hypocritical. Japan, Greece, Italy, Egypt and other nations say they want what rightfully belongs to them, but then again, the millions they can get look mighty tempting to stuff into the national budget.
I guess it comes down to this: Do you want to be virtuous and give up something absolutely priceless, or will you hope the authorities look the other way and you can keep or buy these treasures? Avarice being what it is, I suspect art dealers will continue doing what they have already done.

You can leave comments at pidgierose@aol.com

DALLAS – Pulte Homes Inc. agreed to acquire Centex Corp. Wednesday in a stock-for-stock deal valued at $1.3 billion that will create the nation’s largest homebuilding company.

The transaction, which also includes $1.8 billion of debt, will give the combined business a strong liquidity position with more than $3.4 billion in cash as of March 31.

The pairing of Pulte and Centex comes at a time when homebuilders are still struggling to find their footing as credit remains tight and buyers continue to be leery of big-ticket purchases. The industry in turn has attempted to stem the bleeding by drastically scaling back new construction and throwing more incentives at potential buyers in order to unload existing inventory.

Pulte President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Dugas Jr. was optimistic that the combination “puts us in an excellent position to navigate through the current housing downturn.”

As part of the deal, Centex shareholders will receive 0.975 shares of Pulte common stock for each share of Centex that they own. The transaction is valued at $10.50 per Centex share based on Pulte’s Tuesday closing stock price of $10.77. That represents a 38 percent premium to Centex’s closing price of $7.62 Tuesday.

Centex had approximately 124.4 million shares outstanding for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The companies called the deal a merger, but Pulte stockholders will own about 68 percent of the combined business and Centex shareholders will own the remaining 32 percent. The acquisition comes a little over a month after Pulte adopted a shareholder rights plan to help preserve the value of some deferred tax assets generated by net operating losses, as well as other tax benefits.

Pulte said it enacted the rights plan to decrease the likelihood of “an unintended ownership change.” The plan was not adopted as an anti-takeover measure, it added.

The combined company will use the Pulte name and will be based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., the current headquarters of Pulte. The companies said the business plans to maintain a significant presence in Dallas, where Centex is based.

Upon completion of the transaction, Dugas will assume the positions of chairman, president and chief executive officer of Pulte Inc.

While the transaction is geared toward helping the companies make their way out of the housing downturn, it also is expected to save Pulte about $350 million a year. That includes $250 million in overhead costs and $100 million from the anticipated retirement of more than $1 billion in debt by the end of the year.

The newly combined company will have access to more than 59 U.S. markets and gives Pulte access to Centex’s land holdings in Texas as well as North and South Carolina.

Pulte and Centex contend that the deal will help them capitalize on what many see as a bit of an uptick in the housing market. Last month the Commerce Department said new home sales climbed 4.7 percent in February, providing some hope that the sales may have reached their bottom and are on their way toward a recovery.

“We believe this is the right combination at the right time in the business cycle. By acting decisively now, we’re creating unrivaled firepower to capitalize on the opportunities in homebuilding that are now becoming visible on the horizon,” Centex Chairman and CEO Timothy Eller said in a statement.

Eller will become Pulte’s vice chairman and will also work as a consultant for two years following the acquisition’s completion.

Aside from Eller, Pulte’s board will be expanded and will include three other Centex board members. It will also include eight members of Pulte’s current board, including founder and Chairman William J. Pulte.

The acquisition, which was unanimously approved by both homebuilders’ boards, is expected to close in the third quarter. It is expected to qualify as a tax-free reorganization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30104780/

Finnish mobile phone manufacturer, Nokia Corp (NYSE: NOK) said today it had agreed to buy US smartphone manufacturer Palm, Inc (NasdaqGS: PALM) for 4.15 billion dollars (3.14 billion euros)

“Nokia is committed to be at the forefront of mobile user interface and internet services. By joining forces with Palm, we will  impliment our shared strategy of delivering innovative web experience and services through a unified, single identity user management of all user information and media to our mobile devices.” Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, President and CEO, Nokia. “The integration of WebOS will give our consumers leading convergence devices that more than meet and exceed consumer expectations.”

California-based Palm, Inc will be launching the Palm Pre at the end of the month, the first and last Palm device to feature WebOS.

The acquisition is expected to close in the third quarter of 2009.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idOFLO0104L20RI0A9lP

Here is a good article from WSJ online by Jonathan Matsey.

The Israeli life science industry was in the spotlight recently, when Medtronic Inc. agreed to pay $325 million up-front for Netanya-based Ventor Technologies Ltd., which had raised $17 million in venture financing in part from Pitango Venture Capital. While the deal was great for Ventor’s investors, Rafi Hofstein, chairman of Hadasit Bio-Holdings Ltd., a publicly traded tech-transfer company for Jerusalem’s Hadassah University Hospital, said it highlights a problem with the country’s life science industry: the inability to develop home-grown companies to fruition. And despite the global economic downturn and the re-location of many of the country’s drug and device companies overseas, Hofstein said government policy – and a possible $240 million public-sponsored biotech fund – may ultimately reignite Israel’s life science industry.

Read the full article here

Growth in mobile advertising 

Yes, it’s probably featured on every prediction list for the past several years, but ’09 is almost certain to see significant expansion in mobile advertising. Technology, increasing bandwidth and smart phone ubiquity have brought us to the point where engaging mobile campaigns are no longer just pipe dreams. Marketers in ’09 are likely to increasingly leverage direct response opportunities on mobile.

M&A – bargain hunters out on the prowl

I don’t think any economic commentators are expecting conditions to improve markedly in ’09. Fledgling businesses are going to struggle to get second or third round funding and many established businesses are going to see falling valuations. We should expect M&A activity as companies with good liquidity go bargain hunting.

Migration to more measurable channels

This one is happening now is certain to continue into ‘09. As marketing budgets get squeezed, money will continue to flow out of brand led channels and into direct response.

Ad network consolidation

A cursory glance up and down the aisles at industry trade shows is enough to highlight that there are a lot of ad networks out there chasing the same advertisers and knocking on the same publishers’ doors. With the softening display market and the general economic malaise, it’s likely we’ll see some consolidation in ‘09.

Privacy debate will continue to rage

The backwards and forwards between the various stakeholders looks set to continue into ’09. Over the course of next year, we’re likely to see greater consensus reached surrounding the issue of behavioral targeting and the correct rules of engagement.

Widgets / buttons / gadgets – call them what you will, they’ll continue to be big in ‘09

Brands want to reach customers beyond the confines of their websites and consumers want a customized online experience. And widgets are the glue in the middle. Expect continued growth in the widget space in ’09 and in particular with desktop implementations as consumers look to replicate the iPhone experience on their PCs.

I found this sweet embroidered calico childs apron. It needs some repair to the neck strap (actually it looks quite small, I might need to rebind it, but I have some binding that should work), and the embroidery seems to have blank patches – unfinished perhaps? I don’t know if I have the confidence to finish it without making it look rubbish.

I also found a couple of doilies to add to the stash, and a 70’s pattern for a 7 year old girl that I will probably put away for a few years.

I’ve been procrastinating again, and have made a xmas tree decoration out of wool felt:

And a couple of patchwork balls for the kids:

Strangely enough the one with the flowers is Dominiks, and the tartan one is for Scarlett.

The balls are a test run. For our playcentre end of year breakup the kids will be getting xmas presents and so we have to bring one for each of our kids – age appropriate – but they will be dished out lucky dip style so it’s kind of like a secret santa deal and now I’m rambling again. Anyway, of course I don’t like having to buy gifts, so I’m thinking about making a ball for the baby gift. I figure it will approximate for the price limit given. I hope anyway. I am slightly apprehensive about the handmade aspect – if the other kids are getting bought gifts, will the handmade gifts be inadequate? Or will it be unfair on the kids who are getting the bought ones

Got a couple of packages today from my trademe fabric binge:

Currently on the line after being prewashed.

And tonight I made some more bookmarks. Small, quick projects are somewhat addictive, or it could be that I rather like being able to finish several items in one night even tho I have a clingy baby who wants to be held most of the time.

I’m going to put a couple aside into my xmas gift pool, the other two I will send to the first two people to comment here First person to comment gets to choose between these two bookmarks:

Scarlett wanted to sew again today, so I gave her a scrap of calico and let her go for it. She’s pretty good at not pricking herself with the sharp needle.

Then this turned up in the mail:

Oops. I’ve been on trademe again.

I really like this one, the wee blue flower is really sweet.

Bit of a binge actually. I have another 4 parcels due to arrive soon

Help Me!

I’ve got some $ burning a hole in my pocket and thought I might head along to Amazon and get me some more craft books. I need recommendations please

Of course I could get that Flickr upgrade while I’m at it too…

Went to the sallies again today. Hubby made the ”oh no not more fabric” face again.

Various wovens:

Various knits (including MORE ribbing):

My fave is the woven blue paisley. It’s gonna make a scrummy lining for a tote or handbag I’m planning, the outer of which I’ll probably use the tweedy looking fabric I got as well. I have a ton of ribbing in my stash now, most of which I’ve picked up at op shops in the last month. I don’t actually use ribbing much, but I might have to make some hoodies next winter – it’ll sit in the stash for a while first.

Anyway, when I bought the new stuff home, I decided to end the procrastination and finally clean up my stash cupboard. This is how it looked last night:

OMG what a mess. It’s been driving me nuts for months actually, it’s so hard to get inspired when all the good stuff is at the back and you can’t see what you actually have unless you pull all the mess out onto the floor. Also, it was getting to the point where I would open the door and it would all fall out.

Well, my linen cupboard was kinda the same. We actually have two linen cupboards in this house – one of course I used for my fabric. I chose to swap them over as I thought my fabric would be better in the linen cupboard. So I swapped. I now have two nice clean cupboards and I’m chuffed! Here is my new stash cupboard:

At the top is plain wovens, then print/patterned wovens, then plain knits, then printed/patterned knits (this shelf shares with some of the more humoungous pieces of other fabrics), then towellings and a box of polar fleece at the bottom.

I can see everything, it’s wonderful!

I finally got to bed last night well after midnight.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Because of all the tidying I got a wee bit inspired and made this wee zippered pouch out of some of the fabric I haven’t seen in a while.

I think I’m going to keep this one for myself.

The whole family went into town today, dropped off the car at the garage and we had 2+ hours to kill.  It was nice to be able to take our (my? ) time for a change  We picked up a fab gift for my cousins 21st on Saturday night, after ordering some cutlery online and it turned up with the box all munted, I had to find something else fast  Anyway, we found a great heart shaped photo holder made of wire.  Not the easiest thing to explain, but it’s all wrapped up so I couldn’t get a photo.

Then we popped into the second hand book shop slash flower shop slash wool shop and found this cute wee book for $1.

It’s Pooh drawn in the old style. I do like original Pooh much better than new Pooh.

We had lunch, I had a divine piece of cheesecake that I really shouldn’t have had Went down to the Domain so that Scarlett could play on the slide. She’s so much braver these days on the big towers since she’s been going to playcentre and climbing the ladder herself. I’m such a proud mama

Anyway, of course I went to the Sallies

A 2 meter piece of striped cotton and a 2 meter piece of what I thought was plaid wool flannel but turned out to be cotton flannel It really does feel woolley, but the burn test says it’s cotton. And I got several cotton crochet doilies. They could be cute appliques on skirts or bags or t-shirts.

I have another one I picked up in The Mount ages ago that is still sitting in my laundry waiting to be pre-washed. Really have to get through my backlog!

And I made this outfit for Dominik for the 21st party.

The shirt is a skull and bones print poplin that I originally bought to make into a sling but decided against it. The pants are an olive colored drill and made in the same fit as the wide leg ones I did the other day, so I’m assuming that Scarlett can wear them as short pants as well That should be cute! I narrowed the leg tho as I’m not really loving the wide legs.

I think that’s it Oh, hang on, Scarlett has been in undies during the day for close to a week, and today she had no accidents at all! Yay!

Centrica plc, through its British Gas New Energy division, today announced that it has acquired the low carbon solutions company, Semplice Energy Ltd, for a total cash consideration of £1.5 million (including the repayment of debt). An initial consideration of £1.2 million has been paid on acquisition with a further £0.3 million payable in two years dependant on meeting specified criteria.

Semplice Energy is a leading provider of clean technology solutions in the UK, offering consulting, design and systems integration to help businesses reduce their energy usage, and invest in clean generation to achieve commercially viable CO2 reduction. Semplice Energy currently employs 21 staff.

The deal complements British Gas’ recent acquisitions of Solar Technologies Group Ltd and BMSi Ltd and technology partnerships with Ceres Power, Disenco and vPhase.

Gearóid Lane, Managing Director of British Gas New Energy, said:

“This is another step forward in our development of a broad range of energy efficiency and low-carbon capabilities we can offer business and domestic customers. Semplice Energy will help us in the delivery of these services.”

For more information:

Investor relations: 01753 494900
Media relations: 0845 072 8001

Went to Thames today to do the supermarket shop and convinced DH to stop outside the local Sallies shop – I didn’t know really what I was after, but they had a great fabric section and so I spent $9 and came out with armfulls of fabric Mostly in my most favourite hue There is two pieces of a heavy cotton knit, tons of ribbing fabrics, some polyester stuff, a piece of possibly wool knit fabric, and some bits of cotton print that was bundled with the other stuff but I haven’t pictured.

Duh, I should post the picture

I’m terribly stoked with my haul Now to prewash it all and add it to my stash I must clean that up one day, complete with before and after pictures