WSJ : A Performance Review May Be Good for Your Marriage

A Performance Review May Be Good for Your Marriage

A formal evaluation can help a couple set goals, affirm what works and avoid entrenched conflict

Getting your annual performance review from your boss can be awkward and irritating. Can you imagine getting one from your spouse?

A growing number of marriage therapists and relationship researchers recommend that spouses and romantic partners complete periodic performance reviews. Couples typically wait too long to go to therapy for help, they say. By taking time to regularly evaluate and review their relationship together, partners can recognize what is and isn’t working—and identify goals for improvement—long before problems become entrenched and irresolvable.

“It’s the relationship equivalent of the six-month dental checkup,” says James Cordova, professor of psychology and director of the Center for Couples and Family Research at Clark University, in Worcester, Mass.

This isn’t an exercise to be taken lightly. Couples have to be careful, and constructive, when sharing their assessments. Fairness is crucial. And for couples in a relationship crisis, a performance review is unlikely to help.

Research shows that regular checkups improve relationships. In a study published in Sept., 2014, in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Dr. Cordova and his colleagues gave 216 married couples questionnaires asking them to assess the biggest strengths and weaknesses in their relationship. Half the couples then saw a therapist for a checkup of two sessions to go over their evaluations and brainstorm a plan to address their concerns. The other half were told they were on a waiting list and didn’t discuss their assessments in a checkup.

The researchers, who followed up with the couples after one and two years, found those who had performed the checkup saw significant improvements in their relationship satisfaction, intimacy and feelings of acceptance by their partner, as well as a decrease in depressive symptoms, compared with the couples in the control group who didn’t perform a checkup. In addition, the couples who had the most problems in their marriage before the checkup saw the most improvement.

Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks, relationship coaches and authors of multiple books on marriage, who have been married 34 years and live in Ojai, Calif., schedule informal discussions with each other every Tuesday and Thursday, where they talk about problems or conflicts that have arisen in the past few days. In one recent discussion, Mr. Hendricks told his wife he has been feeling “left out” because she has been traveling so much for work lately, and she assured him that her schedule was going to lighten up soon.

“It gives us a safe, sure place to talk about our emotions,” says Ms. Hendricks, a psychologist, who is 67.

The spouses sit down for a more formal marriage review once every few months, but they are careful to focus on the relationship and not cast blame. They ask themselves, “How are we doing working together as a partnership?” and discuss areas where they need to improve. They examine their top three goals—for example, “working together as a team for our children,” “working together toward financial goals” or “being together so we both have a great sexual experience.” And they talk about how they can make their differences work for them. “It’s like taking the pulse of the relationship,” says Mr. Hendricks, 70, and a psychologist.

Dr. Cordova says while men often resist marriage therapy, they tend to appreciate marriage reviews, because they focus on a couple’s strengths and goals, as well as solving problems without blame.

But how do you review your marriage?

Remember that this is the person you love, and don’t be too critical. “You can’t approach it as you would a subordinate you supervise at work,” says Shannon Battle, a marriage and family therapist in Fayetteville, NC. “You can’t fire your spouse. This is ‘til death do us part.’ ”

Multiple research studies on people’s reactions to performance reviews show that when people feel they have been treated unjustly, they become hostile, But when they feel they have been treated fairly and respectfully, they accept the message of the review.

Rebecca Chory, a professor at Frostburg State University’s business school, in Maryland, who studies reactions to negative feedback, has identified six strategies for giving an effective performance review:

Address the behavior, not the person. Couch your comments with affirmation. “Do not put down your partner,” Dr. Chory says. She recommends saying, “I love you and want to be with you, but there are these behaviors…” or “When you did this, I felt this…”

Explain why you came to your conclusion. What contributed to your assessment? Provide a rationale.

Show that you are aware of the other person’s situation. Is your partner stressed, overworked, sick? Acknowledge the challenges he or she has been facing and how they may have contributed to the behavior you don’t like.

Be consistent over time. This doesn’t mean you can nag. But you should never criticize your spouse for something one time and laugh it off another. “A person needs to know what to expect, the rules of the game” says Dr. Chory.

Allow the other person to respond and provide input. The review should be a conversation, not a lecture. And a lot of misunderstandings can be cleared up when people talk openly.

Be clear about what you would like to change. What can be done to improve the situation?

As for the review itself, Dr. Cordova says you should always begin by identifying your strengths as a couple. “It is the positive foundation that keeps a relationship happy and healthy in the long run,” he says.

Then move on to discussing your concerns—but limit yourself to one or two. “You don’t want to kitchen-sink the thing,” Dr. Cordova says. And you don’t need to come up with a solution right away. Aim to understand your partner and to have your partner understand you.

If the review makes your relationship worse, or causes a lot of arguing, you may need relationship counseling. “If you are doing it well, you can tell because you will feel closer to each other and will each feel understood,” Dr. Cordova says.

>>> Pernod Ricard - MS & Nomura out this morning - Report on 22nd of Oct

MS : Pernod will report its Q1 16 IMS on 22 October. We expect +0.5% organic sales growth in Q1, below company collected consensus of +1.1%. We expect management to remain cautious on its FY16 EBIT guidance (MSe +2.7%). We remain Equal-weight.

Nomura : Consensus 1Q revenue and FY EPS now low; still see organic growth
building

Both notes attached

>>> SAB / AB Inbev - Exane comment on NY Post Article

* AB Inbev & SabMiller : Article in NY Post. SAB mgt considering to fight a potential ABI bid / Our take
- This article is likely to make the market nervous today about the ABI/SAB deal BUT our confidence in the deal remains intact. There is nothing surprising there.
- SABMiller is logically fighting its corner to get the best offer possible. But it will be very difficult for the mgt to justify to turn down an offer above the 4300p level. Remember SABMiller shares were below 3000p early
September.
- According to UK takeover rules, ABI has another week (14 Oct by 5pm) to make an offer. They can ask for an extension. It is quite common. Otherwise they must walk away for 6 months.
==> Both ABInbev and SABMiller need this deal. We still put a 90% chance on the deal.

(Berenberg) Enel should buy EGP with Endesa dividend

We upgrade Enel Green Power to Buy and raise our share price target to €2.00 to
include a 20% takeover premium. We retain our Buy recommendations on Enel
and Endesa.

- Our Buy rating on Enel is based on a belief that the market is under-estimating
the potential efficiencies to be wrung out of the group restructuring measures.
Developing line of sight management is a first step in this process. Global
Business Lines is the second, which should ensure much better capital
allocation as well as best practice efficiencies. Quite rightly, the market has
been focused on falling Italian bond yields for the last two years. Now it is time
for that focus to shift to fundamentals.

- Our Buy rating on Endesa is predicated on a special dividend, paid as early as
2016 (on 2015 earnings) and our forecasts being ahead of consensus. With both
generation and distribution being mature businesses, the Enel group is
running Endesa as a cash cow, with consequent benefits.

- Our Buy rating on Enel Green Power is based on Enel buying out the
minorities at a price of €2.00 per share.


Squandering away Enel group’s biggest growth driver: Despite only accounting
for 12% of Enel group’s 2015 EBITDA, Enel Green Power (EGP) accounts for 50% of
Enel group’s EBITDA growth 2016-2019E. Yet Enel only owns 69.2% of EGP,
effectively squandering away growth to minorities. We think it makes sense for
Enel to buy out the minorities of EGP. It would only cost the company c€3bn
(assuming a 20% premium). That could be financed by a special dividend from
Endesa.

Endesa could finance the EGP minority buyout: Endesa, 70% owned by Enel,
could pay a €4bn special dividend in 2016. By our estimates, Endesa’s balance
sheet headroom is c€5bn (with gearing at 3.0x, the general sector benchmark for
vertically integrated utilities, versus 1.4x currently). Coincidentally, distributable
reserves are also €5bn. We now assume that Endesa will pay a €4.0bn special
dividend on 2015 earnings, in 2016, one year earlier and €1.0bn higher than we
previously forecast. Endesa has repeatedly said “we give ourselves a couple of
years to find additional opportunities to invest… we would consider paying an
extraordinary dividend, but indeed that would not occur before 2016”, Paolo
Bondi, CFO Endesa, FY14 conference call. As we have argued (see Awash with cash,
29 July), we see limited opportunities in Iberian M&A, implying that Endesa will
more likely pay a special dividend than find substantial investment opportunities
in Iberia. In any case, these investments would have to be cleared by the new
Global Business Lines, which would look at alternative uses of funds, ie buying out
EGP.

Earnings accretive to Enel: Whilst this is not our sole measure of value creation,
EPS nevertheless rises by c3%. Assuming that raising €4bn (at Endesa) would cost
2.0%, that would be an after-tax cost of €56m. We estimate 2015 minority interests
on EGP at €144m in 2015, escalating to €205m in 2018. On that basis, this deal is
accretive from day one, assuming a 20% buyout premium.

(SG) Q3 Preview : Better in France but very difficult in emerging markets

Q3 15 sales due Thursday 15 October before the open.

Better in France but very difficult in emerging markets

Watch out for We expect better trends in France, driven, in particular, by lower deflation
linked to price cuts. We expect LFL sales growth ex calendar/fuel of 3.2% for Geant
hypermarkets (+1.7% Q2) and 1.0% for Leader Price (-0.9% Q2, -7.1% Q1). Trends at the
other French banners should prove relatively resilient: -1.0% Casino supermarkets (-2.3%
Q2), 0.5% Monoprix (0.7% Q2), -0.2% Franprix (-3.0% Q2). Outside France: trends are
likely to be tough, consistent with Q2 trends; we see 1.5% LFL growth in Latam Retail
(+2.4% Q2), -24.0% for Latam Electronics (-23.6% Q2) and -3.0% for Asia (-2.9% Q2).

Potential market reaction Despite less short-term risk of potential credit rating downgrades
and growing confidence on dividends, Casino still has a long way to go if it is to reassure on
fundamentals and improve EPS dynamics. Hence, we reiterate our Hold rating. Our TP is the
average of our peer comparison (€49, 10% discount to European peers), NAV (€45) and
DCF estimates (€62: WACC 8.9%, perp. growth 2.5%, norm. EBIT margin 4.7%).

Risk to TP: upside – better-than-expected purchasing synergies (SGe €80m for 2015); a strong
margin recovery in France; downside – further weakness in the Brazilian real; strong margin
erosion for GPA/Via Varejo.

NY Post : You shouldn’t believe the economy is growing — or healthy

So, now we know.
The US economy isn’t doing very well. You already knew that in your gut — and now Washington’s statistical apparatus is finally confirming it.
The fact is, the economy hasn’t been healthy since around 2007. Since then, it’s been growing at only about 2 percent a year — and that’s if you believe Washington’s numbers. And you shouldn’t.
That’s a burp and hiccup away from recession levels. And 2 percent isn’t enough to create the number and kind of jobs that will make Americans happy with the people running this country.
Donald Trump and all his crazy ideas wouldn’t be finding support if we had economic growth of a more normal 4 percent and oodles of jobs.
The latest bad news came last Friday when the Labor Department announced that only 142,000 jobs were created in September. That was below Wall Street expectations and not even enough to absorb all the people looking to enter the workforce for the first time — much less bring laid-off workers back into the fold.
To make matters worse, the August and July job-growth numbers were revised lower — by a total of 83,000 jobs.
And in case you missed it — probably because I’m the only one who reported this — Labor in August also removed 208,000 phantom jobs from its count in a benchmark revision. That revision was for the March 2014 to March 2015 year.
Phantom jobs are positions the government thinks are being created but can’t prove are being created — and in this case, after a year, it became clear weren’t created.
That’s the way things work in Washington. An entire month’s worth of jobs just went poof!
Last week, we also got news from the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank that the economy in the third quarter of 2015 probably grew at only a 0.9 percent annual rate — half as fast as the miserable expansion that is already causing discontent.
OK, now that I’ve taken you on an unpleasant trip down a very bumpy memory lane, let me offer my solution once again. Robert Samuelson, the famed economist, recently wrote in his column that America needed bright ideas.
After eight years of Washington and Wall Street pretending that the economic situation was getting better, maybe someone is now willing to listen to my new, creative solution.
It’s simple: Change the rules on how private retirement funds like individual retirement accounts, 401(k)s and the like can be used. Right now those accounts are so restricted that only the stock and bond markets benefit from their massive size.
Wall Street likes it this way, but it isn’t good for America.
If — at the very least — people were permitted to withdraw some of their retirement funds to invest in real estate, the US economy would get the boost that Congress and the Fed can’t give it.
In fact, this year marks the 11th anniversary since an economist named Walter J. Williams and I came up with this idea. Unless we enjoy the current dismal state of the economy, maybe someone in Washington should give me a call so we can discuss this.
Some readers argued with me after I wrote a column last week about states making it easier to confiscate people’s “abandoned” assets.
As I mentioned then, this warning came from the Investment Company Institute (ICI) — so don’t argue with me.
Just to reinforce the points I made in that column, and to shut everyone up, I asked Tami Salmon, ICI associate general counsel, to say a few additional words on this subject.
Here’s Salmon:
“For decades, states have had laws that enable them to take possession of financial accounts — such as mutual fund accounts, retirement accounts or education savings accounts — when the owner has become lost to the financial institution.
With recent budget shortfalls, however, states have begun to realize how much money they were making as a result of these practices, and many amended their laws to make it easier to claim this property.
Today, states will deem property abandoned if the owner does not contact the financial institution on a regular basis — three to five years, in many cases.
If the states were as aggressive in searching for lost owners and returning property to them, perhaps these laws could be viewed as serving a public purpose. This is not the case.
Most states do not actively search for owners of property, but instead, they wait for the owners to find them and claim the property, all while using the proceeds of the property and the interest on the proceeds for state purposes.
Even when owners succeed in reclaiming their accounts, they have likely been harmed through this process, because they only receive the value of the account as of the day the state liquidated it.
The state has not just cut off any of the growth that should have benefited the owner; with some accounts, liquidating the account imposes tax liabilities on the owner for prematurely withdrawing tax-advantaged funds. Though we would prefer to see the state laws rewritten to put the rights of owners ahead of the interest of the states in the property, this is not likely to occur.
It is up to investors to take the steps to protect themselves and to avoid becoming a victim of these practices.”
So, argue with me if you’d like and ignore Salmon if you trust your financial institutions. But I think it would be foolish to do either.

(GS) Nordex (Buy) to acquire Acciona (CL Buy) wind power

News
Acciona has reached an agreement with Nordex to sell its wind turbine
manufacturing subsidiary for €785mn. According to the press release,
Acciona will receive: i) 16.1mn new issued shares of Nordex (16.6% of
Nordex) valued at €26/sh and ii) a cash payment of €366.4mn. Additionally,
Acciona has reached an agreement with Momentum-Capital to buy an
extra 13.3% stake in Nordex for €335.4mn (implying a value of €26/sh).
Acciona will host a conference call at 08:30 (London time).

Analysis
We see this as a potential positive for Acciona (last close €63.22) as it
would crystallise the value of its wind turbine manufacturing business and
provide evidence of momentum in the restructuring of the conglomerate.
The transaction implies a multiple of 8.7x EV/EBITDA ‘15E, and is slightly
above our valuation for Acciona wind power of €756mn. Acciona wind
power represented 4% of group EBITDA in 2014 and we forecast 8% in ‘15.
At the same time Acciona acquires a 29.9% stake in Nordex at a per share
value of €26, a 19% discount to our 12m PT (based on DCF, EV/EBITDA with
M&A weighting) of €32/sh (PT risks include lower-than-expected volumes
(mainly in Europe, particularly Germany)). We estimate the value creation
for Acciona from the acquisition of the stake would be c. 3% of our SOTP
(€89/sh) based on our Nordex PT. We view this transaction as an
acceleration of Nordex’s (last close €24.96) strategy to diversify further
into EM and the Americas. We estimate Acciona’s EBITDA represents c.
50% of Nordex’s, on our ‘15 forecasts, excluding synergies which are
expected to be very material (Acciona estimates €95mn, c. 35% of the
combined EBITDA in ‘15E). We estimate moderate growth for the Americas
with significant divergence between countries.

Implications
Our price targets and ratings are unchanged.

Positive read-across for wind turbine manufacturing
We see positive read across for Gamesa and Vestas from the deal as the
transaction implies a multiple of 8.7x EV/EBITDA vs. Vestas at 7.8x,
(Gamesa is in line). The synergy potential from the combination could be
significant relative to the size of the business.

(BarCap) Telecom Italia : Downgrade to UnderWeight

We recently met with the main telco players in Brazil and Mexico. In Brazil we conclude that: 
1) macro is hurting prepaid mobile in particular, but competition remains rational;
2) capex should remain high for the foreseeable future as the battle for the primary SIM means an increasing focus on network quality and BRL depreciation increases the size of the bill; and 
3) a positive change in fixed concession terms seems a given but it is unlikely to happen before end H1 16, delaying consolidation. 
In Mexico, TEF needs to become more competitive to preserve its number two spot vs an ambitious AT&T. For TI we move -2% below consensus EBITDA 16e, due to TIMP. With high leverage (3.5x YE 15e), no positive trigger in the short term and a full valuation, we see it as a relative underperformer and downgrade to UW. We believe TEF B (OW, PT USD13) remains best positioned in Brazil but is a drag for TEF (EW, EUR12.1) due to forex. Right-sizing capex
rather than dividend coverage should be the debate for TEF’s investment case.

NY Post : Proposed SABMiller, Anheuser-Busch deal may be skunked

{http://nypost.com/2015/10/05/proposed-sabmiller-anheuser-busch-deal-may-be-skunked/}


There may be a bit too much head on SABMiller shares.
The London-based brewer of Miller Lite, Coors and Blue Moon has seen its share price soar 28 percent since it was reported on Sept. 16 that Anheuser-Busch InBev was putting together a $100 billion-plus offer for the company — closing Monday on the London Stock Exchange at 3,764 pence ($57).

But SAB Chairman Jan du Plessis and his management team are leaning toward fighting the expected ABI takeover bid, a source with direct knowledge of the situation told The Post.
Under British takeover law, ABI has until Oct. 14 to make a committed offer — or walk away for at least six months.
Du Plessis has a history of successfully rejecting offers. As chairman of Rio Tinto Group last year, the executive spurned a $160 billion takeover bid from Glencore. He presently chairs both Rio Tinto and SABMiller.
“SAB is gearing up to fight,” a second source, a food executive, added. “This is far from an easy deal.”
Meanwhile, ABI has decided internally not to go hostile, and to only make an offer SAB is prepared to accept, the source said.
That’s not to say a merger will not be signed.
There is a 60 percent chance ABI makes a committed offer for SAB that will be rich enough for SAB to accept, the source with direct knowledge of the situation said.
Analysts believe that, at a mid-price range, a deal will be at 4,240 pence a share ($64.41), 13 percent higher that the stock’s closing price Monday.
3G Capital (which controls ABI) and SAB declined comment.