1 Rebound in global IPO market (Ann Williams in
Straits Times) Several factors are creating a stop-start market for initial
public offerings (IPOs) across the globe this year, according to a report by
EY.
After the weakest first quarter since 2009, the IPO
market swung back to life in the April-June quarter with a 120 per cent jump in
capital raised to $29.6 billion via 246 deals - up 29 per cent on the number of
deals in the first three months of the year.
Still, IPO activity at the mid-year point remains
significantly below that of the same period last year, EY noted in its
quarterly Global IPO Trends report. At 437 deals, IPO volumes are 38 per cent
lower and at $43 billion, total capital raised is almost two-thirds that of the
first half of last year.
In the second quarter of this year, the Asia-Pacific
was up 20 per cent in terms of capital raised, EMEIA (Europe, the Middle East,
India and Africa) was up 187 per cent and the US was up 755 per cent, with the
UK and Greater China the only major IPO markets to buck this trend. The most
significant gains were made by Australia and New Zealand, which saw proceeds
increase by 820 per cent.
However, the drag from an exceptionally slow first
quarter meant that for the first six months of this year, even the buoyant
Australian and New Zealand markets were down close to a third on the same
period last year in terms of capital raised, with EMEIA down 50 per cent, the
Middle East down 55 per cent, the Asia-Pacific down 65 per cent and the US down
66 per cent.
2 Decriminalizing all drugs (Maia Szalavtz in The
Guardian) We can either criminalize drug possession or fight stigma: we can’t
do both at once any more than one runner can sprint in opposite directions at
the same time. The whole point of criminalizing drug use is to stigmatize drug
users.
To argue that “addiction is a disease” while
criminalizing possession of the drug involved in the addiction is, then, to
make an impossible case. No actual disease is seen this way. Add to this the
fact that the treatment given to people with addiction – unlike treatment for
any other disorder, mental or physical – is also heavily moralistic, typically
involving prayer, confession and restitution and frequently including
deliberate humiliation of a type that is not seen anywhere else in medicine.
Consider, too, the issue of “drug courts” in which
the defendant’s medical treatment for addiction is determined by prosecutors
and a judge, not by doctors. Importantly, in courts that deal with mentally ill
defendants, there is no similar meddling. Because it is not a crime to be
mentally ill, judges recognize that the expertise needed to cope with the issue
is medical, not moral, and they defer to psychiatrists about what treatment and
medications are best.
The methods advocates have suggested, however, are
far too weak. Yes, as Massachusetts’ State without Stigma suggests, we can make
some progress by doing things like eliminating demeaning language. People with
addiction shouldn’t be called “addicts” in the same way that people with
schizophrenia shouldn’t be called “schizophrenics”; person-first language
recognizes our common humanity.
If we really want to treat addiction like the
medical problem it so clearly is, we can’t use the criminal justice system to
arrest people for showing symptoms of it. If you want to fight stigma, you’ve
got to first fight criminalization and reform the coercive and demeaning
addiction treatment system that has been warped by it.
3 Explaining the job gap (Kim Thompson in San
Francisco Chronicle) Life happens and whether we like it or not, we are all
faced with unexpected family or health challenges that can take us out of the
workplace for a length of time. How you explain job gaps sets the tone for how
employers perceive whether your skills are out of date and wondering how you
could contribute to their business.
Most job candidates dread questions regarding times
of unemployment for fear that employers might hold this against them in the
interview. Truth is most interviewers can identify with real life issues and,
in some cases, taking time away from work can demonstrate good judgment and a
sense of responsibility. There are just some things beyond your control that
has nothing to do with your skill set or experience.
When you are defensive or anxious about the job gap,
chances are high you will send the same message to the interviewer. There are
many ways to answer job gap questions, but the best way to do it is through
honesty and a sincere spirit. A job gap will require an answer to help address
any concerns of commitment with a potential employer.
Just to say you took time out for personal reasons,
might not be enough because it’s too broad of an answer and leaves room for the
interviewer to guess. A brief explanation of the reason why you took time off
should be sufficient if you demonstrate how you kept your skills updated.
Volunteering can be an excellent way to keep your
skills current as well as attending training programs and networking. You can
take the barrier away from a job gap by focusing on your skills rather than
feeling awkward about the time away.
No comments:
Post a Comment