Five Things The C-Suite Should Know About Big Data CIO.com

CIO.com

Five Things CIOs Should Know About Big Data

CIO

#1 You will need to think about big data.

Big data analysis got its start from the large Web service providers such as Google, Yahoo and Twitter, which all needed to make the most of their user generated data. But enterprises will big data analysis to stay competitive, and relevant, as well.

You could be a really small company and have a lot of data. A small hedge fund may have terabytes of data, said Jo Maitland, GigaOm research director for big data. In the next couple of years, a wide number of industries--including health care, public sector, retail, and manufacturing--will all financially benefit by analyzing more of their data, consulting firm McKinsey and Company anticipated in a recent report.

There is an air of inevitability with Hadoop and big data implementations, said Eric Baldeschwieler, chief technology officer of Hortonworks, a Yahoo spinoff company that offers a Hadoop distribution. It's applicable to a huge variety of customers. Collecting and analyzing transactional data will give organizations more insight into their customers' preferences. It can be used to better inform the creation of new products and services, and allow organizations to remedy emerging problems more quickly.

#2 Useful data can come from anywhere (and everywhere).

You may not think you have petabytes of data worth analyzing, but you will, if you don't already. Big data is collected data that used to be "dropped on the floor," Baldeschwieler said.

Big data could be your server's log files, for instance. A server keeps track of everyone who checks into a site, and what pages they visit when they are there. Tracking this data can offer insights into what your customers are looking for. While log data analysis is nothing new, it can be done don to dizzying new levels of granularity.

Another source of data will be sensor data. For years now, analysts have been speaking of the Internet of Things, in which cheap sensors are connected to Internet, offering continual streams of data about their usage. They could come from cars, or bridges, or soda machines."The real value around the devices is their ability to capture the data, analyze that information and drive business efficiencies," said Microsoft Windows Embedded General Manager Kevin Dallas.

#3 You will need new expertise for big data.

When setting up a big data analysis system, your biggest hurdle will be finding the right talent who knows how to work the tools to analyze the data, according to Forrester Research analyst James Kobielus.

Continue Reading

Page 2

Big data relies on solid data modeling. Organizations will have to focus on data science, Kobielus said. They have to hire statistical modelers, text mining professionals, people who specialize in sentiment analysis. This may not be the same skill set that todays analysts versed in business intelligence tools may readily know.

Such people may be in short supply. By 2018, the United States alone could face a shortage of 140,000 to 190,000 people with deep analytical skills as well as 1.5 million managers and analysts with the know-how to use the analysis of big data to make effective decisions, McKinsey and Company estimated.

Another skill you will need to have on hand is the ability to wrangle the large amounts of hardware needed to store and parse the data. Managing 100 servers is a fundamentally different problem than handle 10 servers, Maitland pointed out. You may need to hire a few supercomputer administrators from the local university or research lab.

#4 Big data doesn't require organization beforehand

. CIOs who are used to rigorously planning out every sort of data that would go into an Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) can breathe a little easier with big data setups. Here, the rule is, collect the data first, and then worry about how you will use it later.

With a data warehouse, you have to lay out the data schema before you can start laying in the data itself.  "This basically means you have to know what you are looking for beforehand," said Jack Norris, vice president of marketing for MapR. As a result, "you are flattening the data and losing some of the granularity," he said. "Later on, if you change your mind, or want to do a historical analysis, you've limited yourself."

"You can use a [big data repository] as a dumping ground, and run the analysis on top of it, and discover the relationships later," Norris said. Many organizations may not know what they are looking for until after they've culled the data, so this kind of freedom "is kind of big deal," he said.

#5 Big data is not only about Hadoop.

When people talk about big data, most times they are referring to the Hadoop data analysis platform. "Hadoop is a hot button initiative, with budgets and people being assigned to it," in many organizations, Kobielus pointed out. Ultimately, however, you may go with other software.

Recently legal research giant LexusNexus, no slouch at big data analysis itself, open sourced its own platform for analysis, HPCC Systems. MarkLogic has also outfitted its own database for unstructured data, the MarkLogic Server, for big data style jobs as well. Another tool gaining favor is the Splunk search engine, which can be used to search and analysis data generated by machines, such as the log files from a server. "Whatever data you can extract from your logs, there is a good chance that Splunk can help," noted Curt Monash of Monash Research.

--
Stephen.Bates@gmail.com | +1 202-730-9760 

Connect with me!
 LinkedIn

Friedman: This Column Is Not Sponsored by Anyone cc @equalman @jbordeaux @s2barry

This Column Is Not Sponsored by Anyone

PORING through Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel’s new book, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,” I found myself over and over again turning pages and saying, “I had no idea.”

I had no idea that in the year 2000, as Sandel notes, “a Russian rocket emblazoned with a giant Pizza Hut logo carried advertising into outer space,” or that in 2001, the British novelist Fay Weldon wrote a book commissioned by the jewelry company Bulgari and that, in exchange for payment, “the author agreed to mention Bulgari jewelry in the novel at least a dozen times.” I knew that stadiums are now named for corporations, but had no idea that now “even sliding into home is a corporate-sponsored event,” writes Sandel. “New York Life Insurance Company has a deal with 10 Major League Baseball teams that triggers a promotional plug every time a player slides safely into base. When the umpire calls the runner safe at home plate, a corporate logo appears on the television screen, and the play-by-play announcer must say, ‘Safe at home. Safe and secure. New York Life.’ ”

And while I knew that retired baseball players sell their autographs for $15 a pop, I had no idea that Pete Rose, who was banished from baseball for life for betting, has a Web site that, Sandel writes, “sells memorabilia related to his banishment. For $299, plus shipping and handling, you can buy a baseball autographed by Rose and inscribed with an apology: ‘I’m sorry I bet on baseball.’ For $500, Rose will send you an autographed copy of the document banishing him from the game.”

I had no idea that in 2001 an elementary school in New Jersey became America’s first public school “to sell naming rights to a corporate sponsor,” Sandel writes. “In exchange for a $100,000 donation from a local supermarket, it renamed its gym ‘ShopRite of Brooklawn Center.’ ... A high school in Newburyport, Mass., offered naming rights to the principal’s office for $10,000. ... By 2011, seven states had approved advertising on the sides of school buses.”

Seen in isolation, these commercial encroachments seem innocuous enough. But Sandel sees them as signs of a bad trend: “Over the last three decades,” he states, “we have drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society. A market economy is a tool — a valuable and effective tool — for organizing productive activity. But a ‘market society’ is a place where everything is up for sale. It is a way of life where market values govern every sphere of life.”

Why worry about this trend? Because, Sandel argues, market values are crowding out civic practices. When public schools are plastered with commercial advertising, they teach students to be consumers rather than citizens. When we outsource war to private military contractors, and when we have separate, shorter lines for airport security for those who can afford them, the result is that the affluent and those of modest means live increasingly separate lives, and the class-mixing institutions and public spaces that forge a sense of common experience and shared citizenship get eroded.

This reach of markets into every aspect of life was partly a result of the end of the cold war, he argues, when America’s victory was interpreted as a victory for unfettered markets, thus propelling the notion that markets are the primary instruments for achieving the public good. It was also the result of Americans wanting more public services than they were willing to pay taxes for, thus inviting corporations to fill in the gap with school gyms brought to you by ShopRite.

Sandel is now a renowned professor at Harvard, but we first became friends when we grew up together in Minneapolis in the 1960s. Both our fathers took us to the 1965 World Series, when the Dodgers beat the Twins in seven games. In 1965, the best tickets in Metropolitan Stadium cost $3; bleachers were $1.50. Sandel’s third-deck seat to the World Series cost $8. Today, alas, not only are most stadiums named for companies, but the wealthy now sit in skyboxes — even at college games — that cost tens of thousands of dollars a season, and hoi polloi sit out in the rain.

Throughout our society, we are losing the places and institutions that used to bring people together from different walks of life. Sandel calls this the “skyboxification of American life,” and it is troubling. Unless the rich and poor encounter one another in everyday life, it is hard to think of ourselves as engaged in a common project. At a time when to fix our society we need to do big, hard things together, the marketization of public life becomes one more thing pulling us apart. “The great missing debate in contemporary politics,” Sandel writes, “is about the role and reach of markets.” We should be asking where markets serve the public good, and where they don’t belong, he argues. And we should be asking how to rebuild class-mixing institutions.

“Democracy does not require perfect equality,” he concludes, “but it does require that citizens share in a common life. ... For this is how we learn to negotiate and abide our differences, and how we come to care for the common good.”

EMC Greenplum to Host Second Annual Data Science Summit - Yahoo! Finance

EMC Greenplum to Host Second Annual Data Science Summit - Yahoo! Finance

HOPKINTON, Mass., May 11, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

News Summary:

  • Greenplum, a division of EMC, will present the second annual Data Science Summit at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas on May 22-23, 2012.
  • The event brings together thought leaders from academia, the social enterprise, Silicon Valley start-ups, and the public sector to help attendees explore and define their path forward in the new, data-driven world.
  • This year's keynote will be delivered by statistician Nate Silver, who rose to prominence in 2008 when he harnessed data to analyze political polls and accurately predict the presidential election on his FiveThirtyEight.com blog, now part of The New York Times.
  • Applications and registration can be found at http://www.datasciencesummit.com.

Full Story:

Greenplum®, a division of EMC Corporation (EMC), will present the second annual Data Science Summit at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas on May 22-23. The event will bring together thought leaders from academia, the social enterprise, Silicon Valley start-ups, and the public sector to help attendees explore and define their path forward in the new, data-driven world.

This year's Data Science Summit (DSS) comes at a turning point in the rapidly emerging field of data science. Data science today is not only a competitive necessity, but also a defining force shaping the evolution of every industry and sector. And as the promise of data science skyrockets, so does the need for clarity on how to concretely put data science at the center of corporate strategy.  Where are the real-world applications of big data analytics that are transforming entire sectors, and what can we learn from these examples? What does a "data dream team" look like, and how do you become a key member? What are the latest data innovations that facilitate the transformation to a predictive enterprise?  

Data Science Summit 2012 will answer these and other questions by helping attendees see how organizations are using data science to shift the balance of power in their markets, stay abreast of key trends emerging from academia, and explore how to optimize teams and strategies to realize the full potential of data science. Suited to both practicing and aspiring data scientists as well as forward-thinking executives, students and others, the summit will also offer plenty of opportunities to engage with the best and brightest in the field in an intimate setting. Details about the summit, including the full agenda, can be found at http://www.datasciencesummit.com.

"Even though the data science field is still in its infancy, it has already had a massive impact that has fundamentally changed our future," said Scott Yara, senior vice president of products, Greenplum, a division of EMC. "The dialogue today is no longer focused on the emerging data scientist career path and 'rock star' individuals, but rather on the rapidly expanding ecosystem of individuals that are coming together to solve some of the world's most pressing issues with data. The Data Science Summit will be an invaluable tool to help people find their place in this ecosystem."

This year's keynote will be delivered by statistician Nate Silver, who rose to prominence in 2008 when he harnessed data to analyze political polls and accurately predict the presidential election on his FiveThirtyEight.com blog, now part of The New York Times. Silver, named one of the world's 100 Most Influential People by TIME magazine, will discuss "what we can predict about prediction" in his opening keynote. Other speakers at the Data Science Summit 2012 include:

  • Adam Bly, CEO of Seed
  • John Brownstein, Co-Founder, HealthMap and Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School
  • Michael Chui, Senior Fellow, McKinsey Global Institute
  • Jeffrey Davitz, Founder and CEO, Solariat
  • Nora Denzel, Senior Vice President, Big Data, Marketing and Social at Intuit
  • Michael Driscoll, Co-Founder & CEO, Metamarkets
  • Oren Etzioni, Professor, University of Washington and Co-founder Decide.com
  • Bob Flores, Founder and President Applicology; Former CTO, U.S. Intelligence
  • Jim Frederick, International Editor and Executive Editor, TIME 
  • Jonathan Harris, Programmer, Artist and Storyteller
  • Joe Hellerstein, Professor, UC Berkeley
  • Steven Hillion, Chief Product Officer, Alpine Data Labs
  • Jeremy Howard, President and Chief Scientist, Kaggle
  • Piyanka Jain, President and CEO, Aryng.com
  • Tarek Kamil, Executive Director, InfoMotion Sports Technologies
  • Roger Magoulas, Director of Market Research, O'Reilly Media
  • Richard Snee, Advisor, Data Science Central
  • Hadley Wickham, Assistant Professor, Rice University
  • Chris Wiggins, Associate Professor, Columbia
  • Nathan Wolfe, CEO and Founder, Global Viral Forecasting, Inc. and Visiting Professor, Stanford University

The event will kick off Tuesday, May 22 with an evening welcome reception and discussion on the topic of "the data dream team," followed by the full one-day conference on Wednesday, May 23. The conference will address the following topics in depth:

  • Big Data and Business Transformation – how Big Data is shifting entire industries
  • Tapping into the Data Science Movement – how to become a part of this influential movement
  • The Spread of Big Data Across Industries – Big Data's power across media, business, healthcare, sports, government, politics, academia and more
  • Data Visualization at the Point of Influence – how to ensure visualization not just reveals an insight, but stimulates new understanding

About Greenplum

Greenplum, a division of EMC, is driving the future of Big Data analytics with breakthrough products including Greenplum Data Computing Appliance, Greenplum Database, Greenplum Community Edition, Greenplum HD, and Greenplum Chorus—the industry's first Enterprise Data Cloud platform. The division's products embody the power of open systems, cloud computing, virtualization and social collaboration—enabling global organizations to gain greater insight and value from their data than ever before possible. To learn more visit www.greenplum.com

About EMC

EMC Corporation is a global leader in enabling businesses and service providers to transform their operations and deliver IT as a service. Fundamental to this transformation is cloud computing. Through innovative products and services, EMC accelerates the journey to cloud computing, helping IT departments to store, manage, protect and analyze their most valuable asset—information—in a more agile, trusted and cost-efficient way. Additional information about EMC can be found at www.EMC.com.

EMC and Greenplum are either registered trademarks or trademarks of EMC Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. All other products and/or services are trademarks of their respective owners.

This release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined under the Federal Securities Laws. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of certain risk factors, including but not limited to: (i) adverse changes in general economic or market conditions; (ii) delays or reductions in information technology spending; (iii) the relative and varying rates of product price and component cost declines and the volume and mixture of product and services revenues; (iv) competitive factors, including but not limited to pricing pressures and new product introductions; (v) component and product quality and availability; (vi) fluctuations in VMware, Inc.'s operating results and risks associated with trading of VMware stock; (vii) the transition to new products, the uncertainty of customer acceptance of new product offerings and rapid technological and market change; (viii) risks associated with managing the growth of our business, including risks associated with acquisitions and investments and the challenges and costs of integration, restructuring and achieving anticipated synergies; (ix) the ability to attract and retain highly qualified employees; (x) insufficient, excess or obsolete inventory; (xi) fluctuating currency exchange rates; (xii) threats and other disruptions to our secure data centers or networks; (xiii) our ability to protect our proprietary technology; (xiv) war or acts of terrorism; and (xv) other one-time events and other important factors disclosed previously and from time to time in the filings of EMC Corporation, the parent company of RSA, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  EMC and RSA disclaim any obligation to update any such forward-looking statements after the date of this release.

Stephen.Bates | +1 202 730-9760
mobile.short.typos

JP Morgan's 2B loss, in plain English, thanks to @moorehn

JP Morgan's Loss: The Explainer

  • All I know is that everyone's really mad about this JP Morgan mess. What on earth happened?

A JP Morgan trader, Bruno Iksil, has been accumulating a giant bet on U.S. corporate bonds. He used derivatives to do it, and he messed up the bet and lost $2 billion for the bank. He could end up losing $1 billion more if the market doesn't cooperate.

Iksil was so powerful - and his bet was so large - that other traders nicknamed him the London Whale.

  • Is this one of those "rogue traders" I keep hearing about?

No, Iksil worked for JP Morgan and had the full support of the bank and did all his trades with the full knowledge of these four Very Important People at the top.

  • How did no one know about this?

Oh, they did. Everyone knew. Thousands of people.  Iksil's bets have been well known ever since Bloomberg's Stephanie Ruhle broke the news in early April. A trader at rival bank Bank of America Merrill Lynch wrote to clients back then, saying that Iksil's huge bet was attracting attention and hedge funds believed him to be too optimistic and were betting against him, waiting for Iksil to crash. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Merrill Lynch trader wrote, "Fast money has smelt blood."

When the media, analysts and other traders raised concerns on JP Morgan's earnings conference call last month, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon dismissed their worries as "a tempest in a teapot."

  • So why is this in the news again now?

JP Morgan finally put a stop to the bet and admitted the size of the loss. The bank filed the information as part of its usual report to the SEC late on the night of March 10 and then held a hasty, awkward conference call with analysts yesterday.

  • Yikes. Details, please?

Okay, you really want to know? Tighten your seatbelt and take an aspirin. If you're already pretty sophisticated about finance, you might want to check out Lisa Pollack's excellent piece at FT Alphaville in April.

You heard that Iksil was bullish, or enthusiastic, about corporate bonds. The corporate bonds were probably already owned by JP Morgan as part of its trade with corporate clients. Iksil wanted to find a way to bet that those bonds were totally secure, that they would never default.

He noticed that most of those bonds were probably already included in an index. In this case, the index was the Markit CDX North America Investment Grade Index. The Index rolls out a new version every 6 months, and the one that Iksil focused on, #9, actually started trading five years ago, back in 2007. (Although Iksil's bet is far more recent.) Iksil reportedly accumulated a huge bet on this Index worth $100 billion -  according to Bloomberg, which first broke the story of the London Whale in early April.

  • Hold on. Do we know which corporate bonds?

There were over 120 of them in the Index. Here's the full list, which Lisa Pollack at FT Alphaville tracked down. It includes everything from the railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe to CBS to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The common connection among them is that they're "investment-grade," meaning that they are among the stronger corporate bonds out there.

  • Okay, go on. You were saying something about protection?

Yes. "Protection," on Wall Street, usually means one thing: credit default swaps. Credit-default swaps, or CDS, are contracts that pay you money if the credit (like, a bond) goes ahead and defaults. 

Iksil didn't think these companies were going to default. He thought they would do great. So he didn't buy credit-default swaps; he sold them. He was so confident, in fact, that the value of his bet approached $100 billion back in early April.

Other people in the markets - like hedge funds and other traders - thought Iksil was being ridiculously overconfident. Waiting for the giant Iksil's to fail, the anti-Iksil team took the other side of the bet. The rival traders bought credit-default swaps on the Index. They also bought protection on the underlying corporate bonds to influence the value of those as well. Their hope was that Iksil's bet would go down in value; then he would have to run to them to buy credit-default swaps to cover his rear and keep his bet even. They outsmarted Iksil. As he kept digging himself deeper into his position, he got backed into a corner and couldn't cover his losses.

  • Derivatives? Derivatives? Again with the derivatives!

We know, we know.

  • Also, the London Whale? We all know London doesn't have whales.

Actually, once it did get a misguided one that swam into the Thames. But the London Whale we're talking about is Bruno Iksil, the most powerful trader at JP Morgan. (You could argue he also got lost while swimming in the wrong waters.) Iksil works in JP Morgan's Chief Investment Office, or CIO, which has $350 billion of the firm's money to play with to make money. The CIO sits in the firm's Treasury office, and it's nearly as big as the entire JP Morgan investment bank. Just to put it in perspective, $350 billion is 15%, or one-sixth, of all of JP Morgan's assets.

  • Gosh. Why does he get so much money to play with?

Iksil's job is technically to make sure that whenever JP Morgan takes risk as a firm, that it's protecting itself. On Wall Street, that's called a "hedge." (We use the same idea in real life all the time: "hedging your bets.") JP Morgan holds all sorts of securities, including corporate bonds, on its own books as part of the deals it strikes with customers. Iksil and his team exist to make sure that even if JP Morgan's customers lose money, the bank itself is still covered.

But hedges are supposed to be mere protection, not outsized bets of their own. The actual corporate bond market - and the index that Iksil bet on - haven't moved too much. So Iksil's huge bet, the level of risk he took on, and the complicated derivatives he used all walk and talk like proprietary trading.  As my former colleague - and current Huffington Post business writer - Mark Gongloff commented today on Twitter -"poorly constructed hedges sure quack like a prop bet."

  • Proprietary trading? Refresh my memory.

Proprietary trading is the part of an investment bank that makes money for its own account. Most people think of banks as middlemen - they match up buyers and sellers - but banks got sick of watching other people make huge profits on trades. Over the past 10 years banks have committed more and more of their own money to playing in the market on their own behalf, for proprietary purposes. Thus, "proprietary trading."

A lot of big banks came out of the financial crisis stronger than ever, with bigger profit than ever, but over the past year those banks have seen their profits from regular businesses falling. Every big bank has made major layoffs. So taking these risky bets could have been seen as a way to make money.

  • Isn't proprietary trading illegal now? I heard about the Volcker Rule that was supposed to stop this kind of thing.

The Volcker Rule is something that's been talked about a lot but - this may surprise you - it hasn't actually even been written yet. It's currently a legislative whale, at 300 pages, and banks like JP Morgan are still fighting it.

  • What is the Volcker Rule again?

It's an idea that's part of the Dodd-Frank legislative reforms. Paul Volcker, the former Treasury Secretary, said banks should go back to being middlemen for clients. So they should stop any kind of investment activity on their own behalf: no more putting money in hedge funds, investing in companies, or taking big, stupid bets in the market.

  • But haven't banks always taken bets with their own money?

Yes. But the landscape has changed. In the distant past, when investment banks were partnerships, this kind of betting was no problem: the partners bet, and lost, with their own money. They were kept separate from real banks, which take your deposits and make loans.

But over the past 15 years,  investment banks became giant, publicly traded (and government bailed-out) institutions. They also merged with the plain old banks. So now, when they take bets, guess what money they're using? Not their own, and not even their shareholders'. They're using your deposits. And they're more likely to require a bailout from the government if things get really bad.

  • So at least JP Morgan is sorry, right? At least they get that this was stupid and feel all sorts of compunction?

No. They acknowledge it was stupid, but the bank has not indicated that it will stop this kind of activity in the future.

 

 

 

So if the Whale was betting that corporate bonds would go higher, does that mean that he was wrong? Are companies in trouble?

Not necessarily. Yes, the U.S. is growing very slowly.

Art Langer: Virginia Gambale Says CIOs Should Offer Strategic Advice to Corporate Directors - The CIO Report - WSJ

The CIO Report

Art Langer

Guest Contributor

In my experience, many CIOs think their boards of directors want them to focus on costs and budgets. If they want a better understanding of board expectations, they should take some guidance from Virginia Gambale, who has long experience on both sides of the fence.

What directors really value in a CIO is sound strategic thinking and a great ability to execute, says Gambale, a former CIO at Merrill Lynch, Bankers Trust, and Alex Brown, and former partner at Deutsche Bank Capital. Gambale is now the managing partner of Azimuth Partners and a board member at JetBlue and Rev Worldwide, a financial services company that addresses underserved markets.

Gambale said boards expect the CIO to provide guidance on how technology can improve the firm’s growth and market strength, help the company  better reach customers and develop innovations that boost market share.

CIOs should practice “using the language of the board,” she said.

CIOs must talk about things like asset allocation, distribution channels, not technology itself. “Encase yourself in corporate strategy,” she says. “Stay away from talking about the plumbing, and no technical jargon, for sure.”

I asked Gambale how a CIO can best learn the language of the board. She urges CIOs to create close business relationships with their CFO, head of corporate strategy, and product development executives so they can understand the operating model of the company and clearly grasp what drives profitability. For example, at JetBlue, profitability is heavily dependent on the costs of fuel, labor, and airplanes.

Another important piece of advice: Think like a board member. What are they seeking? What is important to the members?

To understand what the board wants, you must have conversations with them—not just at the meeting, but before. Jim Noble, now CIO of Talisman Energy, explained his strategy with the board when he was CIO of Altria, the tobacco company. He always looked to improve his relationships with the board either via special meetings and phone conversations, in addition to being at board events. He often knew the relevant issues; at Altria, the paramount issue was shareholder value.

One thing seems to be certain—CIOs are needed more and more at the board level. The value they bring as a driver of value is apparent; the question will be whether the CIO is ready to step up and provide it.

Dr. Arthur Langer sits on three faculties at Columbia University and oversees executive masters programs in IT management. He is also founder and chairman of Workforce Opportunity Services, a nonprofit that helps companies build stronger talent pipelines by training underserved young adults and military veterans

1B isn't cool. You know what's cool? 100B valuations

A Circle of Tech: Collect Payout, Do a Start-Up

MENLO PARK, Calif. — Matt Cohler was employee No. 7 at Facebook. Adam D’Angelo joined his high school friend Mark Zuckerberg’s quirky little start-up in 2004 — and became its chief technology officer. Ruchi Sanghvi was the first woman on its engineering team.

All have left Facebook. None are retiring. With lucrative shares and a web of valuable industry contacts, they have left to either create their own companies, or bankroll their friends.

With Facebook’s public offering in mid-May, more will probably join their ranks in what could be one of Facebook’s lasting legacies — a new generation of tech tycoons looking to create or invest in, well, the next Facebook.

“The history of Silicon Valley has always been one generation of companies gives birth to great companies that follow,” said Mr. Cohler, who, at 35, is now a partner at Benchmark Capital, and an investor in several start-ups created by his old friends from Facebook. “People who learned at one set of companies often go on to start new companies on their own.”

“The very best companies, like Facebook,” he continued, “end up being places where people who come there really learn to build things.”

This is the story line of Silicon Valley, from Apple to Netscape to PayPal and now, to Facebook. Every public offering creates a new circle of tech magnates with money to invest. This one, though, with a jaw-dropping $100 billion valuation, will create a far richer fraternity.

Its members will be, by and large, young men, mostly white and Asian who, if nothing else, understand the value of social networks. And they have the money. Some early executives at Facebook have already sold their shares on the private market and have millions of dollars at their disposal.

Mr. Cohler, for example, is at the center of a complex web of business and social connections stemming from Facebook.

In 2002, barely two years out of Yale, he was at a party where he met Reid Hoffman, a former PayPal executive who was part of a slightly older social circle. The two men “hit it off,” as Mr. Cohler recalled on the online question-and-answer platform, Quora (which was co-founded by Mr. D’Angelo). He became Mr. Hoffman’s protégé, assisting him with his entrepreneurial investments, and following him to his new start-up, LinkedIn.

Then, Mr. Cohler joined a company that Mr. Hoffman and several other ex-PayPal executives were backing: Facebook.

Mr. Cohler stayed at Facebook from 2005 to 2008, as it went from being a college site to a mainstream social network. One of his responsibilities was to recruit the best talent he could find, including from other companies.

Mr. Cohler left the company to retool himself into a venture capitalist. He has since been valuable to his old friends from Facebook.

Through his venture firm, Mr. Cohler has raised money for several companies founded by Facebook alumni, including Quora, created in 2010 by Mr. D’Angelo and another early Facebook engineer, Charlie Cheever. Other companies include Asana, which provides software for work management and was created in 2009 by Dustin Moskovitz, a Facebook co-founder; and Peixe Urbano, a Brazilian commerce Web site conceived by Julio Vasconcellos, who managed Facebook’s Brazil office in São Paulo.

Mr. Cohler has put his own money into Path, a photo-sharing application formed in 2010 by yet another former Facebook colleague, Dave Morin. Path is also bankrolled by one of Facebook’s venture backers: Greylock Partners, where Mr. Hoffman is a partner.

And he has invested in Instagram, which was scooped up by Facebook itself for a spectacular $1 billion. “Thrilled to see two companies near and dear to my heart joining forces!” Mr. Cohler posted on Twitter after the acquisition.

Instagram clearly was a good bet; it is impossible to say whether any of the other investments Mr. Cohler or other Facebookers are making will catch fire or whether the start-ups they found will last. Certainly, there is so much money in the Valley today that start-ups have room to grow without even a notion of turning a profit.

Ms. Sanghvi, one of the company’s first 20 employees, married a fellow Facebook engineer, Aditya Agarwal. Mr. Zuckerberg attended their wedding in Goa, India.

@VMware ‘The software-defined data center is coming’ cc @ctovision @kevin_jackson

VMware: ‘The software-defined data center is coming’

VMware CTO Steve Herrod is taking the stage at Interop on Wednesday morning to deliver a message about the future of enterprise data centers: “[S]pecialized software will replace specialized hardware throughout the data center.” What server virtualization via hypervisors did for computing, new methods of virtualization and software-defined networks are doing at every other layer of IT stack. “Software-defined data centers” are coming, and they’ll redefine infrastructure for the next generation of applications.

Herrod, who shared his vision with me during a call last week, said one problem in IT has been that for decades applications drove the infrastructure. Batch processing begot mainframes, web applications begot the LAMP stack, and they all still exist, turning data centers into a hodgepodge of specialized legacy systems. “Today’s data center is almost a history museum of past IT ideas,” Herrod said.

On the contrary, Herrod explained,  software-defined data centers are “generation-proof.” They collapse disparate systems into a singularity built atop commodity x86 processors and other gear. Software provides everything that’s needed to adapt the data center to new situations and new applications, and to manage everything from storage to switches to security. Although VMware will always work with hardware partners, Herrod said, “If you’re a company building very specialized hardware … you’re probably not going to love this message.”

Essentially, Herrod said, software-defined data centers will bring the dynamic natures of Google, Facebook and Zynga data centers into the mainstream. Yes, it will be a bit more difficult to do this in environments running more than one application, many of them legacy apps, but it’s possible. “Virtualization and the hardware vendors have [already] gotten us to a place where we can deal with the big modern trends [around scalability and performance],” Herrod said.

That’s good news for CIOs and other IT managers who feel pressure to run data centers as efficiently, dynamically and inexpensively as Google and its ilk do, but who know getting to that point using legacy methods will be an exercise in pain tolerance. ”To actually stand there and say this platform can handle all your applications is pretty bold,” Herrod said. However, he added, the current state of IT represents “a point in time where the pieces have come together to do this.”

Aside from virtualization, the ubiquity of which has laid the foundation for VMware’s software-defined vision, Herrod attributes much of the momentum to broad acceptance of software-defined networks. They help eliminate “the last bastion of pain” in creating a fluid data center.

Herrod will be expanding on VMware’s plans for the software-defined data centers during an onstage discussion with me at our Structure conference next month, and again at VMworld in August. But if you’ve been following the company for the past couple years, you can probably see where it’s headed. It wants to own the next-generation data center from bottom to top, from infrastructure to applications platforms to applications.

As usual, VMware’s vision is compelling, and it has many of the pieces in place to pull it off. It’s up to the Microsofts, Citrixes and Openstacks of the world to develop compelling alternatives or risk seeing VMware — if it can deliver on what it’s promising — expand its hypervisor empire up the stack.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

First Read - Lugar's goodbye

First Read - Lugar's goodbye

An epic good-bye letter, passed along by NBC's Libby Leist, from Sen. Richard Lugar, dissecting everything he sees that's wrong with Washington and both parties:

Prepared Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar  on the Concluded Indiana Senate Primary

May 8, 2012

I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party.   I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office.  My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement.  Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator.  These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise.  Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don't fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors.  They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.  

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy.  One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign.  But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession.  I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped.  I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges.   There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted.  This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken.   I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.  

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.  I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.  

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary.  But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.  

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent.  My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been.  I have no desire to run as anything else.  All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion.  According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator.   I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress.  I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.  

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator.  But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington.   He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate.  In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party.  His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook.  He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.  And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator.  Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve.  The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring.   There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.  

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint.  This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions.  Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country.   And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues.  They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise.  If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years.  And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status.  Parties don't succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents.   I believe I have offered that throughout my career.  But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents.  Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.  

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting.  Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle.  One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset.  Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas.  It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times.  Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today - from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don't remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other.   Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change.  Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases.  For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc.  Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements.  Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives.   If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance.  Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that.  I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders.  I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership.  I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view.  I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate.  Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished.  I expect great things from my party and my country.   I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.

How Hewlett-Packard lost its way - @Fortune @realdanlyons

How Hewlett-Packard lost its way

May 8, 2012: 5:00 AM ET

Léo Apotheker's disastrous tenure as HP's CEO revealed a dysfunctional company struggling for direction after a decade of missteps and scandals. Can his replacement, Meg Whitman, fix the tech giant?

By James Bandler with Doris Burke

HP disasterFORTUNE -- A few months after she took over as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) last September, Meg Whitman held one in a series of get-to-know-you meetings with employees. To say the audience, a group of software engineers and managers, was sullen would be an understatement. As Whitman spoke, many of them glared at her. Others weren't making eye contact with their new boss. Their heads were down, and they were tapping furiously on handheld devices.

"Your comments are being live-blogged," one employee told her defiantly. Whitman challenged the man. "You all have taken leaking to a new art form," she said. "It's a sign of an unhappy company. You wish HP ill." The tapping suddenly stopped, and as the room fell silent, the mobile devices were lowered.

The employees' open contempt for the head of the company and Whitman's acknowledgment of their misery were signs of just how dire things had gotten inside the technology titan after a humiliating series of epic stumbles last year. Just in the few months before Whitman became CEO, there was the costly failed launch of a tablet computer, a mortifying public waffling over whether to spin off the company's giant personal computer business, and then the drumming-out of its third CEO in less than seven years.

If only HP's troubles were confined to a few months in 2011. For a decade now the company has sometimes seemed more like a tawdry reality show than one of the world's great enterprises. The public dysfunction started with the vicious infighting over HP's merger with Compaq in 2002, which reached its nadir when the company's high-profile CEO, Carly Fiorina, pilloried Walter Hewlett, a board member and son of a company founder, for daring to voice his opposition. There was a board riven by feuds -- so out of control that some directors were leaking secrets to the press while the chairman of the board was hiring private investigators to obtain their phone records (and those of reporters) to uncover the perpetrators. That bit of skullduggery ended with the company's chairman and its CEO both dragged before Congress to explain themselves under oath. Then came the ouster of the company's putative savior, CEO Mark Hurd, after allegations relating to his interactions with a marketing consultant who had been an actress in risqué movies; both parties absolutely, positively, categorically denied that there was any hanky-panky.

Dr. Phil could fill a month's worth of shows just examining HP's board, whose dynamics have resembled those of rival junior high school cliques more than what is supposed to be a sage guiding force. At times, as we'll see, HP directors have refused to be in the same room with one another and have accused each other of lying, leaking, and betrayal. Time and again they've failed in their choice of CEO -- their most important task -- selecting a new leader whose most salient trait is that he or she is the opposite of the last one.

All of this has impeded the company from tackling the fundamental problem it faces: Simply put, Hewlett-Packard has lost its way. The company is in the midst of an existential crisis. It remains a behemoth, No. 10 on the Fortune 500, with $127 billion in sales last year and $7 billion in earnings. But the trajectory is ominous. Those profits, for example, were 19% lower in 2011 than in the previous year. HP's business is under siege on almost every front, losing market share and facing declining margins.

HP's big fourIt was a combustible mixture: long-term threats to the business combined with an impaired board and an ill-chosen CEO in Léo Apotheker (LAY-o AH-po-teck-er). The three ignited disastrously during the 11 months that the 58-year-old European software executive ran HP. Indeed, there's no better way to understand the company's plight today than to examine his tumultuous tenure. A Fortune investigation reveals that the turmoil of Apotheker's reign was even more intense (hard as that is to believe) than previously reported. From the slapdash hiring of a man with no experience in HP's biggest lines of business, to the half-baked ways in which the company tackled major strategic decisions; from the never-before-reported internal challenges to Apotheker by top executives, to the fact that HP chairman Ray Lane was a major force in the company's strategic decisions -- which he has since blamed on Apotheker -- the full story of HP's convulsive year has never been told. This article is based on interviews with more than 70 current and former directors, executives, and employees of HP, SAP (where Apotheker once worked), and other companies in the industry, as well as hundreds of pages of company and legal documents, many of them never before made public. (Citing a confidentiality agreement with HP, Apotheker declined to meet with Fortune in Paris, where he now lives.)

With Whitman, 55, now in place, the acrimony at HP seems to have eased. So far her strategy amounts to this: Let's execute better while we figure out our long-term plan. That's fine, as far as it goes. But the company will never come close to reclaiming its former glory unless she and the board can find a way to function together and, most important, until she can answer the real question: What is HP?

The saga of HP's 11 months under Léo Apotheker begins in November 2010. To understand it, you need to appreciate what he found and how HP got to that point. The company seemed strong at that moment, its swagger restored during the five years Mark Hurd had been in charge. Earnings per share had quadrupled. The stock price had doubled. HP was No. 1 in PC shipments, No. 1 in printers, No. 1 in servers.

But just under the surface was a very different reality: HP was traumatized, its employees disengaged. Internal "voice of the company" surveys revealed that morale had cratered. One top executive told Apotheker she felt "maimed" by Hurd's hard-charging style. A company hailed for its vaunted "HP way" -- which emphasized employee autonomy -- had stifled creativity to the point where workers now had a rueful phrase to describe the way they tuned out and pretended to be clueless when executives asked them to do something: "flipping the bozo bit."

HP was barely innovating. The company didn't boast a single hit consumer product even as 67% of its revenue stemmed from hardware. Apple (AAPL) had shown the riches awaiting those who invent hit devices. But there were no iPhones or iPads in HP's bland array of products. And Apple was only one rival for HP, whose diverse businesses meant it also competed with enterprise hardware and software companies such as IBM (IBM) and Oracle (ORCL) and consultants such as Accenture (ACN).

Faced with pressures on every side, HP had seen its numbers begin to slide. After nearly doubling in Hurd's first three years, for example, free cash flow sank from $12 billion in 2008 to $8.4 billion in 2010, his last year.

By contrast, the company HP dreamed of being, IBM, had soared by taking a different tack: It dumped its PC business and focused on high-margin software and services. That prompted what is probably an apocryphal, but telling, anecdote among enterprise techies: Two visiting consultants are waiting for the elevator at a big company's headquarters. One is from HP, the other from IBM. The consultant from Big Blue pushes the up button to visit the CEO on the top floor. The HP man, by contrast, hits the down button to see the IT guy in the basement. The message was clear: IBM was consorting with kings while HP was on hands and knees, fixing the plumbing. It wasn't just a metaphor either: IBM's pretax profit margins, just under 20%, were more than double the 8.7% HP achieved in Hurd's last year.

HP had been operated with an eye toward the short term. Hurd emphasized financial management. Revenues grew largely because of acquisitions -- including the Compaq deal, HP bought 86 companies under Carly Fiorina and Hurd -- and profits multiplied mostly because of Hurd's ferocious cost-cutting and growth in the PC business.

Hurd's early initiatives to pare spending were valuable and necessary. But as time went on it became harder to find waste, and the results became extreme. Employees practically needed an act of Congress to get approval to buy a piece of software. The headquarters of the tech company did not have Wi-Fi. And some minions took Hurd's edicts to self-defeating lengths. At HP's office in Fort Collins, Colo., for example, the lights shut off automatically at 6 p.m. every day, effectively forcing workers to go home. An intrepid few brought their own lamps to the office, only to be scolded by facilities managers, who told them to remove the lights.

Decay had begun to show in some HP offices. Mice skittered in the corridors. Spiders fell from cracked ceilings. As the company cut back on trash pickups, detritus piled up, and in one location workers took garbage home in their cars. Upon arrival, Apotheker was informed that HP was missing 85,000 chairs. The figure was so farcical that he had to check to make sure it was right. It was. Hurd might not actually have "burned the furniture to please Wall Street," as HP's chairman, Ray Lane, would later disparagingly put it. But the Hurd era's external success had concealed internal deterioration.

Before Apotheker ever came to HP, the company was known for its fractious board. Individual directors would cycle in and out, yet somehow the group seemed constantly divided by personal rivalries, bickering, and leaks to the press.

In one HP office, the lights went off at 6 p.m. to save money. Workers were scolded for bringing in their own lamps.

In one HP office, the lights went off at 6 p.m. to save money. Workers were scolded for bringing in their own lamps.

With his forceful personality and a rising stock price, Hurd, 55, managed to suppress the worst contentiousness. But his departure brought out the sharpest antagonisms in the board. Directors argued for an intense week before announcing Hurd's resignation on Aug. 6, 2010. Technically Hurd was pushed out for false explanations on expense accounts relating to interactions with contractor/actress Jodie Fisher. Despite a letter from Fisher's lawyer charging sexual harassment, the company found no evidence that Hurd had harassed Fisher. What doomed him was the board's view that he had misled them when he initially denied any relationship with Fisher. (A spokesman for Hurd declined to comment on the record; the ex-CEO has previously denied any impropriety, financial or otherwise.) Hurd was replaced on an interim basis by CFO Cathie Lesjak, a two-decade HP stalwart who made it clear she wasn't a candidate for the permanent CEO position.

The board's tensions did not abate when Hurd left. One of the ex-CEO's staunchest allies on the board was Joel Hyatt, the founder of a chain of legal clinics and later the co-founder of Current TV. Hyatt was prickly. He didn't hide his contempt for the two directors who had led the investigation of Hurd, Robert Ryan, an ex-CFO of Medtronic (MDT), and Lucille Salhany, the former chairman of Fox Broadcasting. He claimed they had railroaded the former CEO. For their part, Ryan and Salhany couldn't believe how long it had taken their fellow directors to recognize the gravity of what they viewed as Hurd's lies.

There was an almost dizzying array of ambitions and gripes among the directors. Lawrence Babbio, the former vice chairman of Verizon (VZ), hoped to be named HP's chairman. John Joyce, a former CFO of IBM, was vying to be president of HP. Several complained that Hyatt had been -- and was still -- channeling board discussions to Hurd. (Hyatt says his conversations with Hurd were proper and fully disclosed to the board.)

Hoping to mollify Hyatt, the directors named him co-chairman of the committee to pick a new CEO and lead the transition. But Hyatt wasn't placated for long. He was furious to learn that two directors had addressed employees about Hurd's departure without inviting him. "My colleagues aren't interested in my help," he seethed, resigning his title as co-chairman, though he stayed on the committee. When an article detailing the sexual harassment allegations against Hurd appeared, Hyatt accused his fellow directors of leaking. "We took a blood oath" to keep board matters private, he fumed, "and it didn't last 24 hours."

Despite the rancor, the search committee members tried to focus on finding a new CEO. They picked Spencer Stuart's James Citrin to run the search. (Citrin declined to be interviewed for this article.) Smooth, gregarious, wired into the C-suites of the world's biggest companies, Citrin had a network that few could match. He embarked on a two-track search, examining both internal and external candidates.

Four internal aspirants stepped forward. The strongest was Todd Bradley, the head of HP's personal computer group. His group generated $41 billion in annual revenue and had tripled its profitability during his tenure. But Bradley had shortcomings. His critics said he tended to mumble in presentations and was perhaps a bit too cozy with the press. His record as an infighter had made him enemies. Several top executives said they would resign if he were named CEO. For various reasons the other three internal contenders -- Ann Livermore, Tom Hogan, and David Donatelli -- were also ruled out.

Hurd certainly hadn't made the board's mission easy. At various times when he was CEO he had told three of the internal candidates they were his heir, according to people familiar with the matter. Hurd then turned around and told the board that none of them was ready to be CEO. Needless to say, that left bruised feelings that would ultimately sour relations with the next CEO.

Citrin was keen on Ray Lane, a managing partner of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. Lane had a track record in enterprise software and one of the biggest Rolodexes in the Valley. After a successful turn as Oracle's president in the 1990s, Lane was pushed out by CEO Larry Ellison in 2000. He left an extremely wealthy man but bearing a grudge against his former boss. Lane was tempted by the HP job. But at age 65, he had young kids and other business commitments. He didn't want to work CEO hours and he preferred not to travel much. Lane withdrew after it was made clear that being chief of a $127 billion corporation is all-consuming.

If not Lane, then whom? Citrin was enthusiastic about a former enterprise software CEO, whose career he'd been tracking. But hiring him would take courage. He'd been fired after a short, rocky tenure. HP directors were skeptical. But the more they learned, the more impressed they became.

The man had expertise in enterprise software, an area the board thought HP needed to move deeper into. He spoke five languages and had worked on three continents, a major plus considering that more than 60% of HP's business was now overseas. He was a bold choice, Citrin told the search committee, and if they picked him, they would be remembered for making "one of the best CEO picks ever."

Apotheker's rise had been impressive. He was born in 1953 to Polish refugees who settled in Germany after World War II. His father acquired a textile factory with help from the Marshall Plan. Apotheker spent his first eight years in Aachen, Germany, and then moved to Belgium. He studied international relations and economics in Israel.

In 1988, Apotheker joined SAP (SAP), then a small German business software concern, and launched its operations in France and Belgium. Apotheker was a master salesman, deploying cold logic rather than charm. "He could sell ice cream to an Eskimo," says one former deputy. "But he wouldn't just sell ice cream. The customers loved the insights they were getting out of this guy." Apotheker's brilliance and his astute push for key acquisitions such as BusinessObjects helped SAP become an international force. By 2005 he was a contender to become SAP's CEO.

Still, it sometimes seemed as if there were two Apothekers. There was the awkward, self-deprecating version who kept a statue of a clown on his desk, a gift from his children, to remind himself to be humble. And there was the imperious tyrant who could be so overbearing that his enemies dubbed him the Sonnenkönig, the Sun King.

The stories of his nastiness flew around SAP. One poor fellow was only a few sentences into a presentation when Apotheker began bombarding him with questions, according to two people who were present. After several minutes under this fusillade the man sank to the floor, whimpering, "What do you want me to do? What do you want me to do?" Apotheker was capable of absurd flights of invective. "Bring me the liver of that asshole," he raged on one occasion to a stunned deputy, who didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. "I will eat it for breakfast."

An SAP presentation, part of a campaign Apotheker led to "disrupt" Oracle, portrayed Larry Ellison as a fly.

Apotheker thought of himself as an honorable man, according to colleagues. But he viewed the world as a place filled with retribution and betrayal, so he was willing to throw an occasional elbow if need be. After all -- at least, in his mind -- that's what everybody else was doing. Some of the seeds for Apotheker's downfall at HP were planted in precisely that sort of thinking.

It began with a feud between Apotheker's prior company, SAP, and Oracle. As SAP saw it, Larry Ellison's company had barged into its turf -- back-office software -- in 2004, buying PeopleSoft, and later Siebel and others. Ellison, who seems to revel in psychological warfare, gleefully trashed his rival in public. (An Oracle spokeswoman declined to comment.)

In response, Apotheker led a campaign called Project Apollo. The secret operation was rolled out at SAP's summer sales meeting in July 2005. The goal was to motivate the troops by "highlighting the falsehoods Oracle tells about SAP" and to "demonize Larry Ellison to the field," according to a memo prepared for the event.

The presentation included a video that depicted Ellison's head on a fly's body. It was time, Apotheker said as the fly buzzed above him, to "treat Oracle like the pesky, annoying bug it is." At that point, a can of bug spray was aimed at the fly. "And that is how we intend to treat the annoying lies," Apotheker intoned, "by swatting them away with facts."

But Project Apollo wasn't just a truth squad. It became an expensive and ultimately self-defeating attack strategy. The plans, outlined in SAP documents that emerged in subsequent litigation, included a "disinformation campaign" against Oracle and efforts to "disrupt" its rival.

Apotheker ordered SAP to "exploit" the opportunities "to the hilt." One part of the campaign involved a then-newly acquired software company called TomorrowNow, which provided service for users of PeopleSoft and Oracle software, among others. SAP hoped to use TomorrowNow to lure customers from those companies. The problem was that, as even SAP would later admit, TomorrowNow was able to provide cheap service because it was secretly and illegally downloading software from Oracle.

In 2007, Oracle sued. Apotheker was grilled for eight hours by Oracle's lawyers. He dodged and weaved. He insisted SAP shut down TomorrowNow after it learned of its unethical practices. Apotheker remained bland and vague throughout the deposition. Only when the lawyers read him SAP's "attack plan" to "seek and trash Oracle" did Apotheker flash a rare grin. He shouldn't have been smiling. Within three years the suit would blow up in his face.

In June 2009, Apotheker was promoted from co-CEO to CEO. The world economy remained fragile, and like most companies, SAP was suffering. The company was forced into global layoffs for the first time, infuriating its unions.

Apotheker made things worse for himself. When he was co-CEO, SAP had raised the lucrative fees that it charged to maintain its software. Customers resisted, but even as the economy tumbled into recession, Apotheker wouldn't yield. For months he refused to roll back the increase and squabbled in public with his customers. Only after clients had fled did Apotheker finally relent.

It was too late. In February 2010, SAP's executive chairman and co-founder, Hasso Plattner, called him. After all the hard things that had transpired, Plattner told him over the phone, SAP needed a "new face, a happy face." Apotheker was instructed to leave that day. Stunned, he retreated to his home in Paris and sank into a deep funk. Six months later, Apotheker got a second chance. It was Jim Citrin calling about the CEO job at HP.

Citrin's report on Apotheker largely defended his performance. It quoted insiders saying that the CEO fell victim to a perfect storm of circumstances while trying to make bold strategic changes. The report did mention the botched maintenance hike, but it failed to explain the leadership deficits that undid Apotheker at SAP -- faults that would undermine him at HP: his negativity, his nastiness, and his unwillingness to be coached.

The announcement that Apotheker had been named CEO and Lane would be chairman came on Sept. 30, 2010. The Apotheker appointment shocked the tech world. Media reports had predicted the new CEO would be Todd Bradley or Ann Livermore. Within HP, jaws dropped. Léo who? SAP had one-eighth its revenue. For crying out loud, there were HP senior vice presidents who ran units bigger than all of SAP.

For the board, no other candidate had come close. Apotheker had struck just the right notes: He understood the strengths and weaknesses of HP and of key executives; he spoke of the need to restore innovation. True, he was an outsider, but he acknowledged his lack of experience and the board had a solution: Lane, a Silicon Valley blueblood, would guide him. As part of being hired as chairman, Lane had asked who the new CEO would be; he had enthusiastically endorsed Apotheker.

The full board never met Apotheker and Lane before hiring them. As one director told New York Times columnist James Stewart, many were too exhausted by the fighting. Board members did discuss the consequences of hiring two men without hardware backgrounds, but they felt that Bradley and the other HP executives could coach them. They briefly discussed Oracle's litigation against SAP and were assured there was little likelihood Apotheker would become ensnared in it. It was no big deal.

Still, Oracle was emerging as a potential plague for other reasons. Larry Ellison was friends with Mark Hurd and livid at HP's decision to fire him. Ellison publicly accused the board of making "the worst personnel decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs many years ago." Only one month after Hurd resigned from HP, Oracle hired him as co-president.

The news exploded inside HP, which had a complex relationship with Oracle. The two companies were competitors -- but also partners, sharing some 140,000 customers. Within 24 hours of the news, HP filed suit against Hurd, claiming he had put the company's most valuable trade secrets in peril. (Even that move had unintended consequences inside HP. Its general counsel, Michael Holston, filed the suit without consulting the full board. Director Hyatt was furious. "You did what?" he bellowed at Holston. Hyatt thought it would jeopardize HP's relationship with Oracle.)

When Ellison learned that HP had hired two Oracle antagonists, he swung back into action. The timing of Apotheker's appointment was fortuitous. His first day of work, Nov. 1, coincided with the start of Oracle v. SAP, the trial to assess the size of damages for the theft of Oracle software by SAP's unit, TomorrowNow. Oracle's lawyers announced they planned to subpoena Apotheker if he came within 100 miles of Oakland, where the trial was being held.

Apotheker had just taken the reins of America's largest tech company. Many a new leader would fantasize about riding in on a white stallion, flags flying, to take charge. But Apotheker was advised not to testify. So instead of making a dramatic entrance at HP's Palo Alto headquarters, Apotheker was forced to stay away. He took off on what the company dubbed a "listening tour" of its global empire, visiting offices around the world: the U.K., Germany, France, Brazil, Singapore, New York, and Houston.

It was a PR fiasco. Apotheker was mocked. Bloomberg TV sent a reporter to look for him just outside the 100-mile subpoena service limits. WHERE IN THE WORLD IS LÉO? sneered the crawl at the bottom of the screen. It only got worse when Oracle was awarded $1.3 billion in its suit against SAP. (It was later reduced to $272 million; Oracle rejected the judgment and the suit is going back to trial.) Ellison's company had succeeded in making Apotheker look weak and defensive before he even set foot in Palo Alto.

More: HP's cast of characters

Despite the turmoil, there were fleeting moments when it appeared Apotheker might enjoy a honeymoon at HP. Investors seemed heartened by his first moves. He wanted the personal computer and printer groups to focus more on business-to-business sales, and he sought to move the services operation into higher-margin areas. He planned to focus HP's software on big data analytics, a goal he said could be achieved without expensive acquisitions.

Employee morale started to improve. Apotheker undid salary cuts that had occurred under Hurd. He held a series of town halls and breakfasts. He brought in a European youth orchestra to play for the troops at headquarters. He toured HP's labs and vowed to bring innovation back.

But events quickly turned against Apotheker. In February 2011, just three months after he took over, HP missed its quarterly revenue estimate. Both the PC and services divisions had underperformed. Apotheker directed his ire at himself, to some extent, and even more at HP's CFO, Lesjak. Now the stock was being pounded -- down 10% in a day -- because the company hadn't delivered.

Then, in March, came a disturbing flare-up in what was starting to look like a long-term conflict with Oracle. HP's frenemy announced it was discontinuing software development for servers that used Itanium chips made by Intel. It was a stick in the eye of HP, the biggest manufacturer of such equipment (which competed with Oracle's servers). The servers generated more than $1 billion in profits for HP. Now the business was imperiled.

Furious, HP filed suit, claiming Oracle's move violated the settlement in the Hurd case, in which the two companies promised to conduct business as usual. The suit brought more bad press, exposing embarrassing documents, which revealed that Intel had tried to discontinue Itanium because the chips were losing money. The reason the company hadn't done so was because it received $690 million in subsidies from HP to keep manufacturing the chips until 2014.

The threat to the Itanium business underscored HP's vulnerability, and it affected Apotheker's thinking. As he pondered the company's strategic direction, he began to see the need for a more fundamental change. In his mind, the company simply couldn't continue with its strategy of being the most cost-effective hardware supplier and making modest incremental investments in software.

Apotheker started to believe that what HP needed was a transformation on an IBM scale, but conducted in a much shorter time frame. HP should spin off its massive but stagnant PC division. And HP needed to really commit to the software business by buying a big data analytics company.

There was also a third major initiative, this one a holdover from the Hurd era. Apotheker's predecessor had purchased Palm Inc. in July 2010 for $1.8 billion -- one of his main attempts to fashion a growth strategy. (Hurd also recruited venture capitalist and onetime Internet wunderkind Marc Andreessen to join the board and inject some fresh thinking.) Palm was planning to launch a tablet computer -- a product sorely lacking in HP's stable -- and it would use a new operating system called webOS. Technology denizens praised the operating system, which raised the prospect that HP could make giant profits on software (rather than letting the big money go to Microsoft (MSFT)). And the buzz on Palm's tablet was good. Maybe, just maybe, HP would have a new hit -- a quick infusion of profits and prestige.

But before Apotheker hatched his strategy, he and Lane reshuffled the board. The process was messy and contentious. The media would portray the changes as evidence that Apotheker had taken control of the board. In truth, it was Lane who would consolidate his grip.

HP directors were asked for a show of hands: Which were willing to resign?

HP directors were asked for a show of hands: Which were willing to resign?

In November 2010, the same month Apotheker took over as CEO, the usually silent director Ken Thompson, the former chief of Wachovia, declared at a board meeting that every director should tender his or her resignation. That way Lane could pick which directors to keep. The suggestion shocked some board members, but before they could even respond, general counsel Holston jumped in: Letters of resignation aren't feasible, he told them, since securities laws would require them to be publicly disclosed. So Thompson asked for a show of hands: Who would offer to quit? Most directors raised their arms.

Lane quickly established a committee -- Apotheker, Babbio, McKesson CEO John Hammergren, and himself -- to decide which heads to lop off. The jockeying began almost instantly. Hammergren wanted to oust Salhany; in return, she viewed him as arrogant and egotistical. Most of the directors couldn't stand Hyatt and pushed for him to be dumped. Three had refused to sit on committees with him; Andreessen had gone so far as to skip an entire board meeting so he wouldn't have to be in the same room with Hyatt.

In late December, Lane asked the two directors seen as Hurd's main defenders, Hyatt and former IBM CFO John Joyce, to step down. Then, "as a matter of balance," Lane told the two directors who had led the Hurd probe, Ryan and Salhany, that they needed to depart also. Ryan and Salhany were upset. They'd invested significant effort in the investigation and felt their work had been vindicated. Why did they have to go? In the end, rather than cause yet another fight, Ryan and Salhany agreed to leave, signing prepared resignation letters.

Once that was accomplished, Lane set about restocking the board. In January 2011, the company announced five new directors. One, Dominique Senequier, CEO of AXA Private Equity, was seen as an ally of Apotheker's. The rest were Lane's picks. The most notable was Meg Whitman. She and Lane had forged a friendship years earlier; as Oracle president he had helped save the day after eBay (EBAY) experienced a major server crash. Lane later supported Whitman's campaign to be governor of California and, after she lost, helped her get a job at Kleiner Perkins.

Whitman talked to Andreessen, another friend. He told her he thought she'd be an excellent addition to the technology committee and he praised Apotheker as a strategic thinker. To Whitman, the venture sounded interesting and fun. "This is probably a well-run company," she thought. "It's 12 minutes from my house. What could go wrong?"

Plenty was still going wrong at HP in the spring of 2011. On May 4, Apotheker composed a grim e-mail to his top executives. The third quarter was going to be "another tough" one, he wrote. "We must watch every penny and minimize all hiring." Two weeks later the memo turned up in a Bloomberg News article. The memo's grim tone contradicted the sunny message that Apotheker was conveying to Wall Street. The leak forced HP to accelerate its quarterly earnings release, which included news of another pullback of revenue projections. HP shares plummeted. Apotheker was incensed by the leak.

He had wandered into a snake pit. Hurd had fed the rivalries of top executives, claiming that competition and "dynamic tension" inspired better performance. Sometimes Hurd gave multiple executives the same assignment. Everyone knew who was in Hurd's doghouse and pounced on them. He had ridden Vyomesh Joshi, the head of the printer group, particularly hard.

Perhaps because they were used to being dominated by Hurd, few in HP's senior ranks would challenge the CEO directly. Consider Apotheker's attempt, earlier that year, to find a catchy phrase that could define HP. He settled on a head-scratcher: "Everybody on." Instead of opposing the idea, almost every executive told Apotheker it was a great slogan (with at least one whispering behind his back that it was horrible). Only Joshi was willing to speak up. "I don't get this," he told Apotheker when the slogan was unveiled at a meeting. Joshi earned the CEO's wrath. The campaign launched -- and promptly bombed. As one tech blog headline described the debut, HP'S "EVERYBODY ON" AD GOES TO THE GRAMMYS, CAUSES NATIONWIDE CRINGING.

It didn't help that HP's divisions were run as separate entities, each with its own marketing, public relations, and finance teams, and each was held responsible for its own performance. There was little incentive to cooperate. It sometimes seemed as if the printer and computer teams were from separate companies. (This could lead to ludicrous consequences. Some HP PCs didn't even have software that would automatically allow them to "talk" to an HP printer.)

Hurd had managed to hold it together. He had an encyclopedic mastery of numbers and details; he knew which functionary to call deep inside the organization to make things happen. He was an energetic and forceful commander -- somewhere between Gen. George Patton and the Robert Duvall character in Apocalypse Now. You may not have liked the guy, but by God, you were going to follow his orders.

Apotheker, by contrast, was an outsider with a foreign accent. He carried himself more like a professor of German philosophy. He lacked Hurd's stamina, nodding off the first time he met HP's senior executive team as CEO. Apothecker chuckled at his own droll putdowns of California wines, but nobody else seemed to laugh. And he had a distinctive blend of arrogance -- a certainty that the board applauded his every move -- combined with a fear that some executives were trying to undermine him.

Apotheker seemed not to trust longstanding HP executives such as Lesjak, Holston, and Bradley, who he had allowed to stay on. They returned the sentiment. And Apotheker alienated some HP veterans by bringing in a coterie of SAP executives who, one HP source says, were "abnormally deferential." One of them, Marty Homlish, who had been SAP's marketing chief and Apotheker's right hand in the Oracle fight, took over marketing at HP. Homlish routinely addressed the CEO as "my lord." It was meant to be funny, but colleagues were taken aback. The practice only accentuated Apotheker's outsider aura.

Apotheker was failing to unite his executives, but he thought he could count on Lane, who had told Apotheker he would manage the board while the CEO focused on running the business. Apotheker considered Lane a friend. The two men had gotten to know each other decades earlier when, long before either had developed an antipathy for Oracle, Apotheker had taken a hiatus from SAP and consulted for Ellison's company.

There were reasons for optimism. HP had decided to increase its investment in the tablet that had come with the Palm acquisition. It was set to go on sale in July, and the webOS software would be used to launch a new line of smartphones, PCs, and printers. No one expected to dethrone the iPad any time soon. But HP's new tablet would give the company a presence in that market.

In May 2011, Apotheker began in-depth discussions with HP's board on his two other initiatives: a software acquisition and the plan to spin off its PC business. Between May 25 and July 21, he held repeated strategy sessions with the board and various committees. But before they could make any decisions, calamity struck: HP's tablet was an unmitigated disaster. It went on sale only to be panned as ungainly, slow, and burdened with a subpar battery. The webOS software performed well. But Apotheker was galled by the failure of HP's hardware. The tech titan had taken a big swing at the hottest new device in the market and whiffed. The failure was so complete that HP began thinking about pulling the tablet entirely.

The disaster added urgency to Apotheker's strategic plans. He had wanted to go big in software; he had a British data company, Autonomy, he wanted to buy. It would be a perfect complement to HP's portfolio, Apotheker argued, because its software -- a sort of Google (GOOG) for corporations that can search voicemail, texts, and video -- would bolster HP's software and services offerings.

Apotheker appeared before the board and conceded that it was a tricky deal, one that might hurt HP's stock price in the short run. But then the usually formal CEO made an emotional personal appeal. "This company is a burning platform," he told the directors. HP needed a new vision. He concluded: "I cannot do this alone. I need your support. We're going to have to hold hands and go through this together."

It was a stirring presentation, but it was followed by an even more dramatic moment that blindsided Apotheker. He knew that the CFO, Lesjak, opposed the deal. She had told him the price, around 11 times revenue, was too rich. Comparable companies were selling for three times revenue, according to investment bank Software Equity Group. He'd countered that Autonomy's profitability more than justified the price. The two had discussed it privately.

But then, with no warning to Apotheker, Lesjak made an impassioned case against the acquisition before the board. "I can't support it," she told the directors, according to a person who was present. "I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think we're ready. I think it's too expensive. I'm putting a line down. This is not in the best interests of the company." Directors were shaken. Lesjak was considered a voice of sobriety, and here she was on the verge of insubordination, directly resisting a key element of her boss' strategy.

As the debate over Autonomy unfolded, Apotheker and the board tackled an even bigger decision, one that went to the very heart of what HP is all about: Should they jettison the company's $41-billion-in-sales PC division? Unfortunately, the process by which that decision was made would reflect everything wrong with HP in general and the Apotheker/Lane regime in particular. It was rushed and cursory, first dramatically conclusive -- and then uncertain.

In July the board had set up a five-member committee to study the options for the PC division. The committee, which included Babbio, former Lucent CEO Pat Russo, and Ray Lane, held all of two meetings. They didn't even consult Bradley, the head of the division in question. The directors were afraid he would leak the news, so they excluded him.

It was a huge decision, but the board quickly agreed that the spinoff was a good idea. The division's margins were 6% and shrinking. The iPad was eating into the growth of the PC market, raising questions about its future. Apotheker and the directors thought HP could spin off the division and use the cash better elsewhere. Everyone recalled that IBM's sale of its PC division had been a crucial step in its transformation.

But even when the board was decisive, the company couldn't avoid tripping over itself. Lesjak and general counsel Holston argued against announcing definitive plans to unload the division; it might expose HP to shareholder litigation if the plan didn't work out. Because of the fear of leaks, they said, Lane and Babbio's committee hadn't been able to do enough due diligence to assess these impacts. Lesjak and Holston pushed for a weaker statement that HP was considering a spinoff. In part because of the credibility Lesjak had on Wall Street, their voices carried the day.

The activity was frenzied inside HP's executive suites. Apotheker and his top aides were shuttling between groups working on the different initiatives. The CEO himself seemed to be feeling the pressure. After a PR operative told the board that the announcement would be a disaster -- there were too many things being trumpeted at the same time and the mealy-mouthed decision to "explore" a PC spinoff would be badly received -- Apotheker flew into a rage. He stalked back to his office, violently shoving a chair out of his way, and pounded his desk.

But for all the tension, and the challenges to Apotheker's plans, Lane had marshaled support on the board. The directors were unanimous. On Aug. 18, they approved the Autonomy deal and the plans to explore a PC spinoff. With an investor's call scheduled for later that day, Lane e-mailed Apotheker some tweaks to the final script, which the chairman pronounced "good."

HP'S announcement on Aug. 18, 2011, rocked the tech world. It contained three big pieces of news: the Autonomy deal, the possible PC spinoff, and word that HP was officially ending its multibillion-dollar tablet initiative. For good measure, the company lowered its earnings projections for the year. Apotheker told Wall Street analysts on a conference call that he felt investors' pain, "but as CEO, I believe in transparency about what we are facing and [the need to] be clear on the decisive things we are doing now about it." He and his lieutenants used variations of the word "transformation" 20 times.

After the call, Lane received a congratulatory e-mail from Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr, praising the big, bold moves. Replied Lane in a reference to HP's founders, "I actually think Bill and Dave would be proud." Inside HP's headquarters, champagne corks were popped.

Outside, the reaction was dire. Customers, investors, employees, and the financial press were all aghast. HP,

Elasticity of Taxable Income: Of Course 70% Tax Rates Are Counterproductive - WSJ.com

Of Course 70% Tax Rates Are Counterproductive

By ALAN REYNOLDS

President Obama and others are demanding that we raise taxes on the "rich," and two recent academic papers that have gotten a lot of attention claim to show that there will be no ill effects if we do.

The first paper, by Peter Diamond of MIT and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, appeared in the Journal of Economic Perspectives last August. The second, by Mr. Saez, along with Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Stefanie Stantcheva of MIT, was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research three months later. Both suggested that federal tax revenues would not decline even if the rate on the top 1% of earners were raised to 73%-83%.

Can the apex of the Laffer Curve—which shows that the revenue-maximizing tax rate is not the highest possible tax rate—really be that high?

The authors arrive at their conclusion through an unusual calculation of the "elasticity" (responsiveness) of taxable income to changes in marginal tax rates. According to a formula devised by Mr. Saez, if the elasticity is 1.0, the revenue-maximizing top tax rate would be 40% including state and Medicare taxes. That means the elasticity of taxable income (ETI) would have to be an unbelievably low 0.2 to 0.25 if the revenue-maximizing top tax rates were 73%-83% for the top 1%. The authors of both papers reach this conclusion with creative, if wholly unpersuasive, statistical arguments.

Most of the older elasticity estimates are for all taxpayers, regardless of income. Thus a recent survey of 30 studies by the Canadian Department of Finance found that "The central ETI estimate in the international empirical literature is about 0.40."

But the ETI for all taxpayers is going to be lower than for higher-income earners, simply because people with modest incomes and modest taxes are not willing or able to vary their income much in response to small tax changes. So the real question is the ETI of the top 1%.

reynolds2
Getty Images

Harvard's Raj Chetty observed in 2009 that "The empirical literature on the taxable income elasticity has generally found that elasticities are large (0.5 to 1.5) for individuals in the top percentile of the income distribution." In that same year, Treasury Department economist Bradley Heim estimated that the ETI is 1.2 for incomes above $500,000 (the top 1% today starts around $350,000).

A 2010 study by Anthony Atkinson (Oxford) and Andrew Leigh (Australian National University) about changes in tax rates on the top 1% in five Anglo-Saxon countries came up with an ETI of 1.2 to 1.6. In a 2000 book edited by University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod ("Does Atlas Shrug?"), Robert A. Moffitt (Johns Hopkins) and Mark Wilhelm (Indiana) estimated an elasticity of 1.76 to 1.99 for gross income. And at the bottom of the range, Mr. Saez in 2004 estimated an elasticity of 0.62 for gross income for the top 1%.

A midpoint between the estimates would be an elasticity for gross income of 1.3 for the top 1%, and presumably an even higher elasticity for taxable income (since taxpayers can claim larger deductions if tax rates go up.)

But let's stick with an ETI of 1.3 for the top 1%. This implies that the revenue-maximizing top marginal rate would be 33.9% for all taxes, and below 27% for the federal income tax.

To avoid reaching that conclusion, Messrs. Diamond and Saez's 2011 paper ignores all studies of elasticity among the top 1%, and instead chooses a midpoint of 0.25 between one uniquely low estimate of 0.12 for gross income among all taxpayers (from a 2004 study by Mr. Saez and Jonathan Gruber of MIT) and the 0.40 ETI norm from 30 other studies.

That made-up estimate of 0.25 is the sole basis for the claim by Messrs. Diamond and Saez in their 2011 paper that tax rates could reach 73% without losing revenue.

The Saez-Piketty-Stantcheva paper does not confound a lowball estimate for all taxpayers with a midpoint estimate for the top 1%. On the contrary, the authors say that "the long-run total elasticity of top incomes with respect to the net-of-tax rate is large."

Nevertheless, to cut this "large" elasticity down, the authors begin by combining the U.S. with 17 other affluent economies, telling us that elasticity estimates for top incomes are lower for Europe and Japan. The resulting mélange—an 18-country "overall elasticity of around 0.5"—has zero relevance to U.S. tax policy.

Still, it is twice as large as the ETI of Messrs. Diamond and Saez, so the three authors appear compelled to further pare their 0.5 estimate down to 0.2 in order to predict a "socially optimal" top tax rate of 83%. Using "admittedly only suggestive" evidence, they assert that only 0.2 of their 0.5 ETI can be attributed to real supply-side responses to changes in tax rates.

The other three-fifths of ETI can just be ignored, according to Messrs. Saez and Piketty, and Ms. Stantcheva, because it is the result of, among other factors, easily-plugged tax loopholes resulting from lower rates on corporations and capital gains.

Plugging these so-called loopholes, they say, requires "aligning the tax rates on realized capital gains with those on ordinary income" and enacting "neutrality in the effective tax rates across organizational forms." In plain English: Tax rates on U.S. corporate profits, dividends and capital gains must also be 83%.

This raises another question: At that level, would there be any profits, capital gains or top incomes left to tax?

"The optimal top tax," the three authors also say, "actually goes to 100% if the real supply-side elasticity is very small." If anyone still imagines the proposed "socially optimal" tax rates of 73%-83% on the top 1% would raise revenues and have no effect on economic growth, what about that 100% rate?

Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press, 2006).

Stephen.Bates | +1 202 730-9760
mobile.short.typos