May 052013

Much ado has been made about how deflationary Bitcoin is. This is mildly comical, as it conflates three independent processes, as anyone who comments on monetary matters should know. As I have pointed out before:

In general, and all other things held constant (or, as we say in the business, ceteris paribus), prices can rise for three reasons: demand increases (e.g., an auction or a popular restaurant), supply decreases (e.g., lower efficiency, war, or natural disaster), or the number of units of currency increases faster than the rate of increase of goods and services (inflation).”

In the case of Bitcoin, the number of units in circulation is always increasing, albeit at a decelerating rate, thus Bitcoin is inflationary. Granted, Bitcoin can be lost, never to be recovered, and when that rate eventually exceeds the rate of Bitcoin creation, sometime before the hard cap of 21 million is reached, only then can we talk of deflation.

For now, what we are seeing with the general run-up in value of Bitcoin relative to fiat national currencies is a combination of demand increases for Bitcoin and the debasement of fiat currencies by central bankers at a rate that is significantly higher than the rate of Bitcoin creation.

Seen from the perspective of Bitcoin-qua-money, the general fall in prices is a function of users’ preference to hold money and to put off consumption into the future. While it is tempting to call this ‘deflation’, an increase in the demand for money is categorically different from a decrease in the supply of money.

With Bitcoin, we are seeing a radical reduction in time preference—i.e., putting consumption off into the future—which is associated with low discount rates (‘interest’), low risk, and a move away from scarcity toward plenty.

The bigger story here is that if Bitcoin users can find ways to dampen the fiat-price volatility—itself, a form of risk, which reduces present value—then Bitcoin’s value could rise even more dramatically. Think of it this way: people will pay more for a safe bet, like an apartment in Luxembourg, than for a risky bet, like an otherwise identical apartment in Syria. Today, the Bitcoin market is more like Syria than many like, and so they stay away; if Bitcoin’s value were more predictable, demand could increase even more as risk-averse individuals began to see it as a viable asset.

Were this to happen, it would not lead to deflation. Instead, it would show that Bitcoin currently is undervalued.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

May 042013

“It’s a sad dog that won’t wag its own tail.”
—Southern Aphorism

In this spirit, I must share an anecdote that provides very strong support for my long-standing admonition to learn how to write software and program yourself out of a job, rather than wait until someone else does it for you, because if it can be automated, then it will be automated.

I began developing the practice utilities at in response to students’ requests for practice tests in the Managerial Finance courses that I teach. Previously, I distributed paper copies of sample numerical questions from old exams, and every time typos snuck in when I was not looking. No matter how careful I thought I was, I inevitably grabbed a version that had errors in it that were different from the version that I had distributed in the immediately preceding semester, and the cycle of duelling typos never resolved.

Over the years, the typos reproduced and mutated in a manner that had me afraid that I might wake one morning to find that they had evolved into something particularly virulent and maybe even achieve self-awareness.

Finally, a couple years ago, after having told nearly two thousand students over the better part of a decade that they should learn how to write software and program themselves out of jobs, rather than wait until someone else to did it for them, I decided to program myself out of a job. I’m not there yet, but I learned recently that I am closer than I had suspected, and that doing so has improved my teaching performance dramatically.

In a fit of frustration and in a mood to show off a bit, I followed my own advice to solve whatever problem annoys you the most, and converted those contemptible paper printouts into the first version of the online practice utilities linked to above.

During the first semester, students and I identified errors and omissions that, once corrected stayed corrected, and the flood of emailed pleas for help just prior to exams fell from a firehose to a trickle. This is in large measure, I since have learned, because I took the time to incorporate randomly generated values into the problems. In essence, anyone, anywhere in the world can create seemingly infinite variations on the questions posted, just by clicking the Reload button.

In response to the few cries for help that I do receive, I tend to post my replies in this Blog area, and respond more often than not with the URL of the post that addresses the question, along with exhortations to practice, practice, PRACTICE. When a student asks for further clarification, I edit my follow-up response into the existing post.

Shortly after I integrated those sets into my classes, I noticed a dramatic improvement in my students’ test scores and subsequently cranked up the pressure by asking more realistic (read ‘harder’) questions. For the Advanced Managerial Finance class, which we hold in computer labs, I have my students build spreadsheets that replicate each of the practice utilities and use those to answer some sample questions.

The first time that I was asked to teach Principles of Managerial Finance—one of the handful of dreaded required courses that all students in the College of Business must pass—online, I cringed at the thought of my students suffering in solitude, armed with only a textbook and the accompanying publisher-produced practice questions that are more about solving dense and clever puzzles than about preparing for a career of drafting business plans, seeking investment, and managing working capital accounts.

I envisioned each of them cowering in the dark by the light of a kerosene lantern, in a dank and fetid shack with the wind howling, panthers screaming into the night, and alligators banging their massive tails on the kitchen door—we’re in South Florida; that kind of thing can happen from time to time—as they tried to make sense of some of concepts that run exactly counter to virtually everything that their high school teachers and most politicians have told them most of their lives, like the promise of a benefit in the future is worth less than an actual benefit now, you will not necessarily be rewarded for bearing risk, there is a cost for every benefit, and the future is unknowable although it is not unimaginable. That, and we say it with algebra.

Thus were born the videos on the page that links to the utilities above. As I type this, that page is still as ugly as someone else’s baby pictures, and in one of them I had a cold when I recorded the voiceover. And, you know what? The kids love it.

I know this, because I just received my student survey results from the online section that just ended a couple days ago, and my scores are a thing to be envied. This is not because of any special treats that I hand out, as—and I hesitate to post this—I was horribly distracted this semester, and I had thought that I was largely AWOL. I half-expected them to burn me in effigy and call for my public humiliation. (I exaggerate, but only for effect.)

Granted, I make it a point to respond to email within 24-48 hours, but sometimes a four-day weekend turns into a one-week turnaround time (yes, inexcusable!). However, when I was remiss, students turned in their frustration to each other for help, and the vast majority of the time, a classmate directed the questioner to one of my videos or blog posts.

I am fast becoming the Andy Warhol of Business education, whose art is streamlining the creative process to the point where my own hand never touches the end product. And, with Direct Deposit, I don’t even have to endorse and cash the checks. (Again, I exaggerate, but not all that much.)

Here’s the kicker: I use the same exams, albeit with different numbers, in the classroom and online, and my mean scores and distributions are insignificantly different from each other! I very nearly have achieved the Holy Grail of ensuring that my online and face-to-face sections are as closely aligned as is possible.

So, to repeat, if you teach Business, especially Accounting, Economics, or Finance, learn how to write software and program yourself out of a job. Alternatively, contact me and have me do it for you. Seriously.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

May 022013

Anyone new to Bitcoin would do well to read Alvaro Feito’s Big Book of Bitcoin after reviewing these Khan Academy videos.

Bitcoin – Overview

An introduction to the mechanics of bitcoins and an overview of how transactions take place.

Bitcoin – Cryptographic Hash Function

What cryptographic hash functions are and what properties are desired of them.

Bitcoin – Digital Signatures

A high-level explanation of digital signature schemes, which are a fundamental building block in many cryptographic protocols.

Bitcoin – Transaction Records

The basic mechanics of a bitcoin transaction between two parties and what is included within a given bitcoin transaction record.

Bitcoin – Proof of Work

An explanation of cryptographic proof-of-work protocols, which are used in various cryptographic applications and in bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin – Transaction Block Chains

Bitcoin – The Money Supply

The mechanisms by which the supply of bitcoins is controlled.

Apr 082013

In the USA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) requires “US taxpayers with specified foreign financial assets that exceed certain thresholds [to] report those assets to the IRS.” FATCA also requires “foreign financial institutions to report directly to the IRS information about financial accounts held by US taxpayers, or held by foreign entities in which US taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest.”

Generally, the FATCA requirement to file Form 8938 kicks in, once the total value of non-US assets under a US tax resident’s control exceeds USD 50,000.

If FATCA were applied to Bitcoin, how this might affect the nascent Bitcoin market comes down to who Bitcoin’s biggest users are perceived to be by policy makers and law enforcement officials, and how much economic activity they represent.

If Bitcoin’s user base is perceived to be predominantly weapons smugglers and drug dealers, then Bitcoin is a godsend for law enforcement agents. They just need to seize a few hard drives, identify a few account keys, and sniff the blockchain for leads. It isn’t the perfect honeypot, but it is less inconvenient that trying to subpoena bank records in n jurisdictions. Then again, maybe law enforcement agents will try to shut Bitcoin down, in spite of the fact that this only would lead to a fractured market of clone payment systems. The fat cat is, after all, out of the bag.

If Bitcoin’s user base is perceived to be predominantly anarcho-libertarian and neo-revolutionary sovereign citizens plotting the demise of the nation-state, then really, who cares? They might believe their own brochures, but they’ve been threatening darkly to rise up as one for a half-century, and they still can’t buy a vote, not least of which because most of them seem to worship money from afar. They might perceive themselves to present an existential threat to the viability of a centralized leviathan—fantasizing that they will widow their spouses and orphan their children before they surrender their home security equipment—but they are little more than a nuisance for local police, and they rarely go much further than throwing empty beer cans at their televisions. (I say this as one who sympathizes with some of their aspirations, but who has grown weary of waiting for Godot.)

If Bitcoin’s user base is perceived to be predominantly offshore money managers and accredited investors on the one hand and retail sellers and their customers on the other hand—i.e., normal business—then those for whom FATCA applies already have hot and cold running paperwork, and their software already handles FATCA; and those for whom FATCA does not apply, should be able to carry on business as usual.

Where all of this will lead, only time will tell. As Ludwig Lachmann stated throughout his career, the future is unknowable, even if it is not unimaginable. However, I remain optimistic about Bitcoin and about regulators’ responses to it and other financial innovations.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

Apr 052013

In response to the growing interest in Bitcoin, Crowdfunding, and related topics, I am developing an online course that focuses on post-Industrial entrepreneurship. This is to be a practical and fairly standard university-style course that I will host in Moodle on this website. (My plan is to devote summer 2013 to getting the first version of the course up, in time for the publication of the JOBS Act rules in the USA.)

This is a request for topics to include in the outline of the modules that focus on Bitcoin, Crowdfunding, Chilean incorporation, and other recent innovations. The idea is to go back to Adam & Eve, and to lead the student through the curriculum, as if he or she were six years old. My target market is the non-techie who is selling services or information goods, or is doing small-scale international trade. The course is to be open to anyone in the world who has access to the Internet.

By way of background, I teach Finance in South Florida, and I am a veteran of the first wave of moneypunk ‘electronic currencies’ back in the 1990s. The mood of the day now feels very much like those heady days two decades ago leading up to the Dot.Com Boom, that saw the birth of Amazon, Google, PayPal, and Yahoo!, and later Facebook, Skype, and YouTube.

Any suggestions and links to resources will be greatly appreciated, and I will be glad to acknowledge publicly anyone who likes that kind of recognition. I already have a large collection of resources, and redundancy of recommendations will be seen as confirmation.

Invest accordingly,

Prof. Evans

Mar 192013

Approximately once per decade, the market experiences a Gold Rush, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that, once missed, is gone forever.

Examples include the introduction of competitive long-distance telephone service in the USA in the 1980s and mobile telephones after that; two- and three-letter domain names in the late 1990s; privatization in newly democratized countries; etc.

Bitcoin appears to be such a Gold Rush, especially now that it has received the regulatory green light in the USA.

A user of virtual currency is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations. However, an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, specifically, a money transmitter, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person. An administrator or exchanger is not a provider or seller of prepaid access, or a dealer in foreign exchange, under FinCEN’s regulations.”
Guidance: Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), 18 March 2013

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

Mar 152013

A personal finance question that is asked on many accounting and financial professional exams is the Lifetime Savings Problem, in which one is asked how much one would have to set aside on a regular basis, beginning in one’s youth, in order to enjoy a retirement of a particular level. A typical example is:

Imagine that you planned to retire 30 years from now, and that you wanted to set up an account, into which you would make equal-sized payments each year during your working years, that would enable you buy an annuity that would pay you $25,000 at the end of each year for the 25 years immediately after you retired. Based on the expectation that your savings account should earn 9% per annum and that the retirement annuity should have a more conservative yield to maturity of 3% per annum, how much should you set aside each year until your planned retirement?”

This problem is in two parts: a) your retirement plan, and b) your savings plan to achieve that goal.

Savings Plan

Pay into Retirement Account

Retirement Plan

Draw from Retirement Account

A financial arrangement like the ones depicted above, in which payments—called coupon payments (c) for historical reasons—are made on a regular schedule for a specified period of time (t) is known as an annuity*. Here, the retirement account is an annuity that will pay you (perhaps, you will buy it from an insurance company or a large bank), and the savings account is an annuity that you will pay into (perhaps, a brokerage account or a statutory retirement account that you manage with the help of a financial professional).

To solve this puzzle you need to work backwards, first by deciding how much you would like to receive each year after you retire and for how many years; then by calculating the expected value—the price that you expect to pay, when the time comes—of an annuity that will provide for your retirement, which value becomes your savings goal; and finally by calculating how much money you should set aside each year between now and retirement, in order to achieve that goal.

Before you can know how much (c) to pay each year into a savings account that you open in your early years, you need to know how much you want to save. In other words, the price (APV for “annuity present value”) of the annuity that you plan to buy when you retire—the price that you expect to have to pay upon retirement—is exactly equal to the amount that you need save (AFV for “annuity future value”) during your working years. Tomorrow’s present value (i.e., price) is today’s future value.

Retirement Plan

If you imagined, for planning purposes, that you could live on $25,000 (c) per year after you retire, and that you wanted to plan for a 25-year (t) retirement—on the expectation that you’ll figure out a Plan B sometime during the next 55 years, in case you live beyond Year 26 after retirement—and that you expected your retirement account to earn 3% (r) per year, then you would need to save (APV):

This means that you need to have $435,329 on the day of your retirement, 30 years from now, so that you can buy the annuity that will pay $25,000 per year for 25 years.

Savings Plan

In order to save that amount (AFV), you plan to make equal annual payments (c) for the next 30 years (t), and you expect that you can earn an average of 9% per year (r) over that time.

If all goes according to plan, then, if you set aside $3,194 at the end of every year for the next 30 years and earn an average of 9% per year on your savings, then you should have $435,329 in three decades that you can use to buy an annuity that pays $25,000 per year for 25 years.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

note: For a detailed explanation of annuities, review my “Time Value of Money” video lecture. If you have difficulty viewing the videos try using VLC Media Player, “a free and open source cross-platform multimedia player and framework that plays most multimedia files as well as DVD, Audio CD, VCD, and various streaming protocols.” [return to main text]

Feb 232013

Some many years ago, I interviewed for a job in Vienna. The individual whom I was to replace was an Englishman bedecked in an aura of weariness that Englishmen wear so well, like a comfortably wrinkled suit. He told me that he had come to admire the Austrians for their marketing genius, what with having convinced the world that Beethoven was Austrian and Hitler was German.

I was reminded of this recently, in a discussion about socialism, during which it stuck me that socialists exhibit a similar genius.

It is much less inflammatory to call someone a socialist than it is to call someone a terrorist, a racist, or even a statist, even though tens of millions of humans have died in the name of various brands of socialism, whereas the victims of terrorism number in, perhaps, the tens of thousands.

This is not to excuse any brand of collectivism—be it tribalism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, or boosterism—but it should be unexceptional to declare it worse to kill 20 million than to kill 3,000.

To put this to the test, utter the name Pinochet and then the name Lenin during an argument over politics and note the differences in reactions. Pinochet is credited with killing about 3,000 individuals; Lenin, millions. And yet, university students can write term papers on Lenin that are generally supportive of Bolshevism, whereas the same—mutatis mutandis—is not true of Pinochet.

Better yet, socialists have convinced a great number of individuals that some salient difference exists between ‘right-wing’ national socialism and fascism and ‘left-wing’ international socialism and communism. Both Hitler and Stalin engaged in systematic genocide; so, that does not distinguish them. Nor do secret police, purges, the suspension of fundamental human rights, etc.

About the only policy difference between ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ socialism is that under ‘right-wing’ socialism individuals retain title to property, and under ‘left-wing’ socialism private property is abolished, and everything belongs to the state. Under both systems, the disposition of property is dictated by the central authority’s agents.

Under fascism in Mussolini’s Italy, the farmer owned the cow, and an agent of the state dictated whether the cow was to be milked or slaughtered, and how the resulting products were to be distributed; under communism in Castro’s Cuba, the state owns the cow, and an agent of the state dictates whether the cow is to be milked or slaughtered, and how the resulting products are to be distributed.

And yet, here we are, surrounded by individuals who are emboldened to speak of Marx, Lenin, and Castro with a warmness that one would be surprised by, if the subject were Hitler, Mussolini, or any 20th Century Latin American military dictator.

This is relevant today, because this false distinction is used to silence critics of statist policies.

For example, on the one hand, critics of ObamaCare who decry it as socialistic—meaning, implicitly, left-wing socialism—can be shown to be incorrect, because The Mandate that requires US residents to transact with commercial insurance firms under penalty of a ‘tax’, the non-payment of which would be a felony, is not the same thing as nationalization. No nationalization, no socialism; QED.

On the other hand, if someone correctly describes ObamaCare as fascistic—not totalitarian, racist, or genocidal, but in the sense of a government policy that puts the needs of the nation above individual rights, as determined by a very few individuals who wield supreme power—as Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey has done, the backlash is swift.

Check, and mate. It isn’t socialism. You cannot call it fascism.

Rather than address the substance of the criticism, the message of the backlash is more akin to whipping the little boy who dares to point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes or the dog that exposes the scare little man behind the curtain pretending to be a wizard.

This obsession with trivial distinctions between ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ collectivism that statists use to distract the conversation from substantive issues puts individualists at a rhetorical disadvantage.

Call a statist a statist, and one is perceived as shrill; call an individualist an individualist, and it comes across as meaning something benign, like not keeping up with fashion trends or maybe listening to unpopular music.

Call a socialist a socialist, and one might inspire a discourse on the moral superiority of the proletariat over the plutocracy. Call a fascist a fascist, and the knee-jerk assumption is that one means that the other party is a murderous racist.

We are left with relatively unfamiliar terms, like ‘corporatism’ or the ungainly neologism ‘crony capitalism’, neither of which captures the essence of being compelled to dispose of one’s property according to the dictates of individuals who do not bear personal cost for their decisions.

Little is to be done about this situation, other than to be aware of it, to recognize it when it happens, and to avoid being distracted by activists’ misdirection.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

Feb 132013

The graph below is the standard, textbook depiction of the effects of a minimum wage on the labor market.

Hardly anyone ever states explicitly what is meant by the quantity of labor, and the tacit assumption is that it refers to hours worked. Considering that the labor theory of value was abandoned except by Marxists and other cranks nearly a century-and-a-half ago, this is a dubious assumption.

However, the graph above is fine for general, broad-brush discussions.

Think of quantity as the number of employees, the number of hours worked for hourly wages, or whatever.

The dotted line in the middle that rises from L* is the market-clearing quantity of labor. This means that the number that choose to work equals the number that employers want to hire at the wage indicated. At any wage below the market wage, fewer choose to supply labor than employers choose to hire (labor shortage); and any wage above the market wage, more choose to supply labor than employers choose to hire (labor surplus, aka unemployment).

Offer 10¢ per hour, and hardly anyone will show up for work. Offer $10,000 per hour, and surgeons, nuclear physicists, and talk show hosts will quit their jobs to come work for you.

If one set the minimum wage at $10,000 per hour, then not only those willing to work for the market wage would be closed out of the labor market, but those willing to work for $9,500 per hour would be closed out.

This process is multiplied by automation.

A half-century ago, about half of the working population in the USA was involved in manufacturing and distribution; today it is a bit less than 10%, and the total value of goods manufactured in the USA continues to exceed the total value of goods manufactured in China.

American factories no longer need an army of proletarian meat-that-talks, when robots are more accurate, don’t organize labor unions, and do not demand insurance and retirement benefits.

It is such a shame that we have so few political rulers who understand basic corporate finance. Instead of increasing employers’ cost of labor, policy makers should be doing everything they can to decrease employers’ cost of labor, if their goal is to reduce unemployment.

If one wants to institute populist policies—and I am not saying that one should, only if—then one would do better to focus on the lower end of the income statement than on the upper end.

Income Statement
+ Gross Sales
- Variable Costs (supplies and materials)
- Fixed Costs (rent, payroll, insurance)
- Depreciation or Mark-to-Market Adjustment
- Interest
= Earnings Before Tax (taxable profit)
- Tax (some percentage of taxable profit)
= Net Income (after-tax profit)

If one raises the minimum wage, one increases Fixed Costs, thereby reducing Earnings Before Tax, and potentially making it negative. In such a situation, the natural response for managers is to reduce the scope of the firm, to automate, or both, and lay off as many workers as is feasible.

Better to let the market determine the appropriate wage rate and to increase the corporate income tax—since it is paid on before-tax profit—and use the additional proceeds to fund transfers to workers. That way, the firms’ executives would have an incentive to increase the scope of the firm, in order to increase Net Income to its previous levels before the tax increase.

Granted, this would create an incentive for firms to relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions, but that’s the sort of thing that one must accept, if one insists on instituting populist policies.

At the very least, the effects of the corporate tax would be known and predictable—X% of taxable profit—rather than hit-or-miss increases in payroll costs caused by the arbitrary political fiat of a minimum wage.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans

Feb 052013

My expertise is in the field of Finance and Economics education, and not in the field of Criminology. I do not pretend to understand the underlying psychological and sociological causes of criminal behavior. However, I can identify a business opportunity when I see one.

Amy L. Solomon, a Senior Advisor to the Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Justice Programs at the US Department of Justice, wrote in the National Institute for Justice Journal (207, June 2012):

[N]early one-third of American adults have been arrested by age 23. This record will keep many people from obtaining employment, even if they have paid their dues, are qualified for the job and are unlikely to reoffend.

Granted, arrest does not always lead to conviction, and conviction does not always lead to incarceration, but the likelihood of getting called back for a second job interview drops by 50% for those whose background checks turn up an arrest. Those who have convictions or—Heaven help them—incarcerations on their records might as well forget ever being reintegrated fully into mainstream society, it seems.

Also, having an arrest record—just arrest, not even conviction or incarceration—can result in being denied entry into some countries, including US citizens who try to visit Canada.

Even more tragic, the effects are not uniform across the population.

One recent study estimates that 25 percent of African Americans born after 1990 will witness their father being sent to prison before their 14th birthday.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were born into a poor family living in a crime-infested part of town. Imagine, further, that you made some kind of mistake as a teenager—say, you were caught selling marijuana, possessing an unregistered firearm, or standing lookout for a local street gang—and you wound up going to jail. Mind, you never injured anyone; you were arrested for committing a victimless crime. You’re no angel, but you’re not a real danger to anyone, either.

While in jail, you would be distracted from advancing your education and developing the behavioral habits of mainstream society. Upon release, you would be behind your peers in school, perhaps you would feel angry and betrayed, and you would have developed a demeanor appropriate to surviving in jail and in a neighborhood populated by others with biographies and résumés similar to yours. Chances are that you would use illegal recreational drugs to take the edge off.

Now, you are barred from many jobs and from renting an apartment in all but the seediest neighborhoods, and you have no credit history. Nonetheless, you must eat and find shelter.

This is the day-to-day reality of a distressingly large proportion of the US population. For billions of humans outside the USA, the situation is only marginally better, regardless of criminal history.

What is a single individual to do about a problem this large, and—much more fundamentally—why would anyone who is not a Mother Teresa even want to bother?!?

A Proposal

As it turns out, someone has identified this niche and is doing something about it.

Defy Ventures [is] a yearlong, MBA-style program that [Catherine] Rohr created to teach former inmates how to start their own companies… Defy Ventures has raised more than $1.5 million in donations and pledges from VC firms, hedge funds, businesses, and private foundations.

We at propose to work with police departments, judges, parole boards, and charities, to provide Business education to those who have criminal histories and those at risk. This is based on the idea that, if one is a business operator, then one does not have to face the specter of drug tests and background checks.

As we demonstrate on this website, we are carving a niche for ourselves that involves the development of tutorials and practice utilities for students in Business disciplines.

This is a call to anyone who would like to incorporate our work into their programs, especially those who cater to the disenfranchised, worldwide. We have completed the proof-of-concept phase, and are using what already is available in a large government university. The next stage involves rounding out the offerings, so that they largely automate instruction, leaving facilitators on the ground free to focus on the specific and particular needs of face-to-face interactions.

Please share this with anyone who might be interested.

Invest accordingly.

Prof. Evans