• Business Insider surveyed real-estate agents around the US about what it's really like working in their industry.
• We asked those who work in the luxury market what it's really like working with millionaire and billionaire clients.
• Many agents said working with affluent clients is easier than dealing with ordinary clients because they tend to know exactly what they want, they have the means to get it, and they don't waste any time.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Business Insider asked real-estate agents around the US about what it's really like working in the industry, what they wish they could tell their clients, and what it's like working with millionaire and billionaire clients in the luxury market.

Many agents said working with affluent clients is easier than ordinary clients because they tend to know exactly what they want, they have the means to get it, and they don't want to waste any time.

One agent said wealthy buyers want a good bargain as much as anybody else — and since they have more options, they'll walk away if the price isn't exactly right.

Here's what it's really like working with ultra-wealthy clients in the real-estate industry.

SEE ALSO: 13 easy things you can do to increase the value of your home, according to real-estate agents

DON'T MISS: 11 things that make a home unsellable, according to real-estate agents

Several agents said millionaire and billionaire clients aren't too different from ordinary clients.

"I've only had a handful of truly wealthy clients, but I can say that my experience with them was honestly the same as any other client," Jason Tsalkas, an agent at Compass who sells homes primarily in Brooklyn for between $650,000 and $2 million, told Business Insider. "As a hired real estate advisor, you should be working for the relationship, not solely the transaction. Additionally, we live in NYC on a 'New York Minute' — time is everything. No matter who the client is, respond and react in REAL TIME."

And as with any client, honesty is the best policy when it comes to super-wealthy clients, Tsalkas said.

"I remember having to tell a certain famous client a property wasn't for them, despite how much he thought why, until I laid out the reasons," he said. "No one deal is worth losing the confidence and respect of a client; being transparent will gain you that respect for a lifetime."

Colin Turek, a Compass agent who sells in the $800,000 to $2 million range in New York City, says millionaire and billionaire clients "care about the same stuff — just on a bigger and more luxurious scale."

Many said it's actually easier to work with clients who have "infinite funds" ...

"I commonly work with millionaires," Barbara Leogrande of Douglas Elliman, who sells homes at an average of $550,000 in Suffolk County in Long Island, told Business Insider. "I find it to be easy, as a millionaire didn't accumulate wealth by accident. They have a head for business and understand the dynamics of a transaction."

It's typically a smooth process from start to finish, she said.

"When you work with clients who have infinite funds, it becomes almost easier in a sense because a couple hundred thousand dollars don't typically make a difference," Eric Goldie of Compass, who handles sales in New York City for $1 million to $5 million on average, said."Working with clients who are buying their first starter home is more of a challenge because every dollar matters. I once had a client who wanted to put a hot-tub on the roof of his penthouse which would require shutting down a major road in Manhattan. I told him it would cost roughly $100,000 and he didn't even flinch. " 

Jose Laya, who sells homes in Miami for between $800,000 and $2 million, said most wealthy clients make quick decisions, don't waste time, and tell you exactly what they think.

"Most deals can be quite easy as they pay cash," he said.

... as long as you work around their schedules.

"This of course comes at a price, as they expect you to be on-call at all times," Laya said. "And always remember... everything will happen on their time. And that is the tough part... working EVERYTHING around their schedules." 

Communication tends to be easier with wealthy clients.

Brian K. Lewis of Compass, who sells $2 million to $10 million homes in New York City, says he loves the "ease of communication" that comes with working with the highest-end buyers and sellers.

"They tend to be good communicators and are often self-made individuals," Lewis told Business Insider. 

He added that many of these clients grew up middle class and have universal values and fears.

"I don't get distracted by fancy titles, or their fame, or the trappings that come with their fortunes," Lewis said. "I relate to them as individuals. Trust is built. Communication is good. I get them what they want. I've used this formula to effect a sale for $42 million— but I also use this same approach for my $420,000 clients."

Agents get to see some of the most luxurious homes in the world working with these clients.

"Working with millionaire and billionaire clients is one of the most exciting parts of the job as you get to see some of the most luxurious homes on the market,"Jared Barnett, a Compass agent who sells homes between $2 million and $5 million in New York City, told Business Insider.

"People have the perception it's more challenging to sell ultra-luxury homes to a buyer, but in fact these clients have often bought and sold properties many times throughout their life," Barnett said. "For this reason, they know what they like and are able to make quick decisions, which can expedite the process."

Some of them have "handlers" who deal with their real-estate transactions.

Michael Bello of REAL New York, who does $5,000-per-month on average rentals in the city, said the most affluent clients often have "handlers"— such as accountants or lawyers — who take care of the transactions for them.

"I rented to the daughter of a wealthy celebrity last summer, and they had their accountant handle everything," Bello said. "They wanted to remain anonymous. They couldn't have been nicer people, though!" 

Wealthy clients know exactly what they want.

"They are very clear on what they want, do not like to waste their time and want us to respect their time and they respect our time," said Smitha Ramchandani, a broker-associate at SR Real Estate Group at Prominent Properties Sotheby's International Realty, who sells homes in New Jersey and California, in the $400,000 to $3 million range.

Working with millionaire clients requires a perspective shift.

Scot Dalbery of REAL New York, who deals with rental properties in New York City that are $4,000 a month on average, said that working with millionaire clients is all about adjusting perspective.

"Unlike other typical buyers, there is more urgency for their needs to be met," Dalbery said. "They're often the nicest and most understanding clients. However, you have to know what you're getting into and understand that they have a different perspective on many things than the typical buyer does, and make sure you allow them to voice those opinions in a way that doesn't feel judged." 

Agents should understand their time is less valuable than that of their ultra-wealthy clients.

Martin Eiden, an agent who sells homes in Manhattan and Brooklyn for between $700,000 and $7 million, says working with millionaire and billionaire clients is "pretty much the same" as with other clients.

"Be courteous, professional and prompt," Eiden said. "If they call you on your cell, you need to pick up. Time is extremely important to them. Don't waste it, and understand your time is less valuable than theirs. For billionaires, you will often work with their personal attorneys and rarely (if at all meet them)."

Millionaires want to get a great deal as much as anybody else.

Julie Brannan of Compass, who deals with homes at an average $2 million in New York City, said there's a misconception that people of means don't want a bargain. 

"In some ways, since their options are so open, they are more driven to get the right apartment at the right price or they will walk away," Brannan said.

"I once negotiated up to $26 million on an apartment that was listed for $31 million and the seller wouldn't come down from a counter of $29 million," she said. "My buyer could afford it but felt it was overpriced (and I agreed). We walked away and bought something else — and three years later that apartment is still on the market, now for $26.9 million."

This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here.

Regtech solutions seemed to offer the solution to financial institutions' (FIs) compliance woes when they first came to prominence around 24 months ago, gaining support from regulators and investors alike. 

However, many of the companies offering these solutions haven't scaled as might have been expected from the initial hype, and have failed to follow the trajectory of firms in other segments of fintech.

This unexpected inertia in the regtech industry is likely to resolve over the next 12-18 months as other factors come into play that shift FIs' approach to regtech solutions, and as the companies offering them evolve. External factors driving this change include regulatory support of regtech solutions, and consultancies offering more help to FIs wanting to sift through solutions. Startups offering regtech solutions will also play a part by partnering with each other, forming industry organizations, and taking advantage of new opportunities.

This report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, provides a brief overview of the current global financial regulatory compliance landscape, and the regtech industry's position within it. It then details the major drivers that will shift the dial on FIs' adoption of regtech over the next 12-18 months, as well as those that will propel startups offering regtech solutions to new heights. Finally, it outlines what impact these drivers will have, and gives insight into what the global regtech industry will look like by 2020.

Here are some of the key takeaways:

• Regulatory compliance is still a significant issue faced by global FIs. In 2018 alone, EU regulations MiFID II and PSD2 have come into effect, bringing with them huge handbooks and gigantic reporting requirements. 
• Regtech startups boast solutions that can ease FIs' compliance burden — but they are struggling to scale. 
• Some changes expected to drive greater adoption of these solutions in the next 12 to 18 months are: the ongoing evolution of startups' business models, increasing numbers of partnerships, regulators' promotion of regtech, changing attitudes to the segment among FIs, and consultancies helping to facilitate adoption.
• FIs will actively be using solutions from regtech startups by 2020, and startups will be collaborating in an organized fashion with each other and with FIs. Global regulators will have adopted regtech themselves, while continuing to act as advocates for the industry.

In full, the report:

• Reviews the major changes expected to hit the regtech segment in the next 12 to 18 months.
• Examines the drivers behind these changes, and how the proliferation of regtech will improve compliance for FIs.
• Provides our view on what the future of the regtech industry looks like through 2020.
  Get The Regtech Revisited Report
  

   

Join the conversation about this story »

• Employees tell us that Oracle has been quietly laying off thousands of people all spring, and they fear there's more to come.
• A Wall Street analyst points out that Oracle's growth has been paltry at best, and that it seems to be losing market share in its critical database business.
• Oracle needs its old-school software revenue to stay strong while it remakes itself into a cloud computing player — a market it entered late, and where it trails the leaders Amazon Web Services and Microsoft.
• Meanwhile, there was a political battle between two cloud groups at Oracle, which was won by the newer, Seattle-based team. But because that group has very few customers and Oracle is cutting expenses, that group was not spared from the layoffs.
• The situation has left some employees feeling frustrated with what they describe as a chaotic, political work environment.
• Visit BusinessInsider.com for more stories.

Oracle began trimming its workforce in March — quietly laying off employees worldwide with rolling cuts that have continued through this month. And employees are bracing for more cuts over the summer, some have told Business Insider and othermedia outlets.

Oracle acknowledged the layoffs, although it never announced the total number of jobs it will cut.

"As our cloud business grows, we will continually balance our resources and restructure our development group to help ensure we have the right people delivering the best cloud products to our customers around the world," a spokesperson said at the time the original layoffs were reported, and reiterated to Business Insider this week.

Employees have told us that thousands of jobs have already been chopped at Oracle worldwide. In March, we heard that 1,500 jobs worldwide were cut. Earlier this month, Oracle closed a Chinese R&D center cutting about 900 employees there, according to news reports and employee protests.

The Chinese Global Times also said that Oracle employees believe a another layoff in China will happen in July. Some employees we talked to believe 10% of Oracle's workforce of 138,000 will be impacted by the time Oracle is done, either by layoffs or other restructuring.

But the interesting thing isn't just how many people Oracle is cutting. It's also the business units being targeted.

Specifically: 300 people were cut from Oracle's Seattle offices in the early rounds of layoffs, including 25% of of the all-important group known internally as Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI, one employees told us and another, who was laid off in Seattle, confirmed. Corporations do not have to report layoffs in the state of Washington unless 500 people are impacted in a single location at one time, and Oracle has not publicly reported layoffs in the state.

This Seattle team is Oracle's second cloud engineering and development group, but arguably its most important one. Its mission is to build what Oracle calls its Oracle Cloud Infrastructure Generation 2 cloud, which is also known internally as OCI. The new cloud has become the centerpiece of Oracle's whole technology strategy. Gen 2 was announced in the fall.

The original group of cloud developers — the one based in the company's Silicon Valley headquarters, and who built what most Oracle cloud customers are currently using — is now internally called Oracle Cloud Infrastructure-Classic, or OCI-C.

As we previously reported, one employee who was laid off in the March cuts from OCI-C told us that OCI-C bore the brunt of the earlier layoffs in the overall cloud unit. This makes sense since Oracle is now phasing it out and focusing in on its second cloud.

Read: A laid-off Oracle cloud developer says there's been a power struggle between Oracle's Seattle and Silicon Valley offices — and Seattle won

But why wasn't the Seattle-based OCI team spared from layoffs? Because, according to three Oracle employees we spoke to, it is filled with highly-paid engineers and is, so far, generating very little revenue to cover their costs. These employees asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak about internal company matters.

Oracle declined to comment on the politics between the two cloud teams and the growth of Gen 2.

Where's the growth?

A look at Oracle's numbers, as analyzed by Morgan Stanley analyst Keith Weiss in a research note on Tuesday, gives a clue as to the kind of pressure Oracle is feeling. Weiss's report asked, "Where's the growth?"

Weiss wrote (emphasis ours):

"Despite a robust software spending environment, Oracle has only managed a ~2% constant currency (cc) revenue CAGR over the past five years, versus large cap peers more successfully navigating the transition to the cloud. Despite management continually pointing towards various elements of the solution portfolio gaining momentum, the overall ship has failed to gain speed."

Weiss also points out that Oracle stopped reporting its key cloud metrics in its current 2019 fiscal year.

So, while Oracle executives tout growth in the online versions of its popular business applications —  its most successful cloud initiative — the company obscures its overall cloud financials by blending them in with of other business units.

Read: An Oracle insider explains how some salespeople gamed the system to sell more cloud

Oracle is late to the cloud computing market, and must invest heavily if it hopes to catch up.

Its customers are rapidly moving to the cloud, and want to use the biggest platform with the most features. Market leader Amazon Web Services releases hundreds more new features every quarter than Oracle does. 

More importantly, Weiss believes Oracle is losing market share in its core database software market, which represents half of the company's revenue — and that cloud growth isn't happening fast enough to offset this stagnation.

The problem: Companies are moving to clouds from Amazon, Microsoft, and other competitors and then sampling those competitors' cloud databases, Weiss finds. (See chart, below.)

Read: The exec behind Amazon Web Services' fastest-growing product of all time says that it 'feels great' to be taking on Oracle head-to-head in the database market

Oracle has released a fancy new database it calls the Autonomous Database. Oracle customers are likely to want to upgrade to it eventually, and may be willing to pay more to get it. At that point, Weiss believes, Oracle may start showing some overall revenue growth again. Whether this new product stops customers from moving to cloud competitors, or draws in new database customers, remains to be seen.

At the moment, Amazon is heavily targeting Oracle's customers, claiming that more than 130,000 databases have been moved to its cloud — including many from Oracle. Amazon has itself largely moved off of Oracle's databases, and towards its own home-grown alternatives.

Weiss concludes that Oracle's investors won't feel much immediate pain and the stock price will rise to $59, up from about $53 today. But he sees this increase happening from better earnings-per-share that could come from Oracle's more aggressive share buybacks. He estimates that Oracle bought back about $37 billion of its own shares year-to-date in its 2019 fiscal year, compared to $11 billion in the previous fiscal year. Fewer shares on the market mean current stockholders will get an increasing piece of the profit pie, provided Oracle can restrain its expenses.

Employees describe infighting between cloud units

From inside Oracle, this shift toward a new Gen 2 cloud while clamping on expenses has been extremely political, employees tell us.

"Overall, the execs are highlighting growth, low costs and high performance. The last could be said to be true, but the first two are definitely not," says one employee.

The battle between the two teams — OCI-Classic and OCI — has already been won by the OCI team in Seattle, we hear. 

But the infighting resulted in chaotic processes, according to two Seattle-based Oracle employees.

For instance, one person says that the technical differences between the two clouds are not drastic. Both clouds offer similar services, and are built on the same Oracle hardware that it also sells to its customers. Using its own software and hardware is how Oracle is keeping its cloud-building costs in check, executives say.

But that means that every time a team needs to add new hardware to its part of the cloud, it has to rely on the internal Oracle supply chain team — the group responsible for buying things like memory, networking, and other components used in the hardware it builds for its customers, too. Everybody is in the same queue needing the same gear for their different needs, we're told. 

One employee says it can take up to 10 weeks to get the new hardware needed to build out their cloud.

"It's a massive task just to get those orders through, and this is at very, very low volumes and slow cadence," that employee said.

"To get anything provisioned at any level is like a months long process. It's crazy," said the other Seattle-based employee we talked to. 

Internal rivals

Meanwhile, the teams acted like competitors to each other and didn't cooperate much, three Oracle employees have told us.

For instance, the original cloud was hosted in "lots of little data centers," one of the Seattle-based employees describes. This makes sense, since building new data centers from scratch is a multi-billion, expensive affair. Oracle says it currently has four data centers and has plans on the books for nine more, Data Center Knowledge reported last fall.

But Oracle's Seattle team was so intent on being seen as different from the California team, they even went out and leased their own separate data center space, sometimes "in the same buildings" as the other cloud group, a Seattle-based employee told us. They took this measure, even if Oracle had plenty of room in the already-leased space controlled by the other group, the employee said.

The teams didn't even always even know what Oracle hardware was installed and where, we're told.

One of the employees describes ridiculous situations where an engineer would be standing on an empty spot in a data center, looking for the equipment that the internal systems said was located there.

In the meantime, Oracle customers are not yet flocking to its Gen 2 cloud, the same person told us.

Gen 2 could be off to a slow start

Much of this second cloud is currently being used by other, internal Oracle teams. There are a few big key customers, known as reference customers, who are "getting a ton of service for a song," this person says — as in, they're getting a great deal because they're so early to the cloud. 

But actual paying customers as yet are "near nil," the employee says.

Between the infighting, the layoffs and the emphasis on efficiency, all three employees we talked to seemed exasperated.

"As a 'reboot' of the cloud strategy it looks remarkably similar; same hardware, same services, same locations and generally the same architecture. And the same 3-4% growth and exceptionally high engineering overhead," the Seattle employee said.

Are you an Oracle insider with insight to share? We want to hear it. jbort@businessinsider.com, @Julie188 on Twitter or reach out on Signal.

SEE ALSO: Trump's blacklist of Huawei has serious implications for Red Hat, Oracle, VMware, and other huge US software companies

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tesla has a mini Model S for kids that costs $600, and this family bought it to teach their child about driving electric

• Roger Federer is playing the French Open for the first time since 2015, but he denied it is a swan song.
• Federer told The New York Times that he hasn't planned for retirement because the more he thinks about it, the more he already feels retired.
• Federer has credited his longevity to training and a love of tennis and has said he finds it exciting to not know when or how his career will end.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Roger Federer is set to play in the French Open for the first time since 2015, but he denied rumors that this is a farewell to Roland-Garros.

Speaking to The New York Times' Christopher Clarey, Federer said he has no plans on retirement because he feels that if he plans it, then he's already "halfway there."

"I heard rumors that people said I definitely wanted to play the Tokyo Olympics next year, and that's when I'm going to retire, but I never said anything like that," Federer told Clarey.

"I really don't know. I always said, 'The more I think about retirement, the more I am already retired.' People ask me, what are you going to do next? And I say, 'Well, in a way I'm not quite sure, because I feel if I plan everything for my post-career, I feel like I'm halfway there.' I think it would not affect my performance per se, but maybe my overall desire to want to do well."

According to Clarey, there is some skepticism in the tennis community that Federer, a known planner and "orderly," as Clarey put it, does not yet have an end in sight.

Perhaps Federer doesn't have a plan. Federer spoke to Jason Gay of The Wall Street Journal in 2018 and said his career doesn't have to have a fairy tale ending and that he has no idea how it will go.

"I've long given up that it needs to end in a fairy tale," he told Gay. "I don't need to be ranked [No. 1] or need it to be after a big title. If it happens that way, that's amazing. But you can't control it all. You have to put yourself out there, be vulnerable. I play because I love tennis, not because it needs to end with a [perfect] situation ... The only thing I wonder is: How will it be, the moment of retirement? How emotional will it be? Where is it going to be? What will lead to it? Is there a process — or do you wake up and decide at once?"

Federer called the unknown "exciting."

At 37, Federer credits his longevity to a few things — a detailed plan of tournaments to play and skip, training, and a love of tennis.

Federer's former coach, Paul Annacone, echoed a similar point to Gay last year. 

"It's one of the most amazing things about his makeup," Annacone told Gay. "He still finds happiness in hitting a tennis ball, the gym, doing the work. It's hard to imagine that, at 36, it can still be fun, but it is for him."

Federer told Clarey before the French Open: "I think that's why I am still here today. I never fell out of love with the sport."

• Read more:
• Klay Thompson gave an all-time eye roll and grew frustrated after learning he missed out on nearly $27 million by not making an All-NBA team
• $250 million PSG player Kylian Mbappe has been told to 'be on time' and 'eat, sleep, and play like a professional' if he wants more responsibility
• The romance between Sloane Stephens and Jozy Altidore is the most adorable story in sports right now, and their Instagram photos prove it
• Women's World Cup 2019: Everything you need to know before the tournament kicks off in Paris

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 details in 'Game of Thrones' season 8 episode 4 you may have missed

• Bringing a new pet into your home takes careful planning and consideration. 
• Keep an eye out for signs of illness. 
• Introduce your new pet to other pets carefully. 
• Visit INSIDER's homepage for more stories.

Bringing home a new pet is an exciting time, but it can also be overwhelming. The first few days with a new pet can be a critical time for bonding and forming good habits. INSIDER consulted with veterinarians and pet experts to make sure your new pet settles in perfectly.

Have supplies on hand before your new pet arrives

The day you bring home your new pet is not the time to run to the pet store for bedding and toys. It's important to have all the necessary pet supplies available before your new family member arrives.

Dr. Yolanda Ochoa, regional veterinary director of Fetch My Pet, told INSIDER that you should have a crate, bedding, gates, a litter box, and non-plastic food and water dishes before bringing your pet home. Toys, treats, a collar and leash, and a toothbrush are all helpful to have for puppies. A scratching post, kitty tree, laser pointer, pet water fountain, and a brush are helpful to have for cats.

For other furry creatures, it's best to ask the shelter or pet store what you'll need to prepare. 

Try to feed your new pet the brand of food they're used to eating for at least the first few days to avoid upsetting their digestive system. 

Allow your new pet to explore their space without other people or animals around

It's totally normal for a pet to be a bit wary of their new home at first. To help them adjust, allow your new animal time to take in their surroundings without any other pets or people around.  

"It is very important to give the new dog or cat independent time and space to explore their new home before introducing them to the rest of their new human and pet family," veterinarianDr. Michael Dym of1-800-PetMeds told INSIDER.

Let your new pet sniff around on its own can help alleviate their fear and allow them to familiarize themselves with the scent of any existing pets or other people.

Don't allow your new free-reign of the house right away

Even if you plan on allowing your pet access to the entire home eventually, you should start off by keeping them in a smaller area.

"Initially restrict your new pet to a single room or small part of your home so they are not overwhelmed. Use a closed door or baby gates to separate this area from the rest of your home,"Dr. Jennifer Coates, veterinarian and advisory board member at Pet Life Today told INSIDER.

Provide your pet with everything they need in this smaller space, including food, water, a comfy bed, a few toys, and a litter box and scratching post if necessary. Gradually allow them access to larger areas of the home as they adjust.

Introduce pets to each other gradually

If you already have another animal at home, it's important to introduce your pets in a safe and controlled way.

"Let pets get used to each other through a baby gate or with the new pet crated. Keep their initial interactions short and supervised," said Dr. Coates. "If either pet acts aggressively or is extremely nervous during the introductory period, separate them and try again another day when everyone is calm."

Even normally calm and gentle pets may react territorially when a new animal enters the home, so always be ready to intervene if either pet seems stressed.

If possible, introduce dogs in a neutral place

Dr. Amanda Landis-Hannah, veterinarian with PetSmart Charities, told INSIDER that introductions between old and new dogs should be in a neutral spot, like a park or a friend's yard.

"Have a responsible adult keep each pet separate until you are ready to let them interact while leashed. Keep each as calm as possible and let them get to know each other for a few minutes, by sniffing," said Dr. Landis-Hannah.

When the dogs have gotten acquainted, walk them home together or drive them in separate cars. This arrangement will help avoid a territorial reaction from your existing pet.

Make sure your 'old' pet isn't ignored

Bringing home a new pet is undeniably exciting, but don't leave your existing pets out in the cold.

"Make sure your 'old' pet gets a lot of attention. Feed that pet first. Play with that pet first and again after spending time with your new pet. Keep your old pet's schedule as unchanged as possible," advised Dr. Coates.

Be sure to lavish love on all your animals equally, especially as existing pets get used to the idea of a new animal in the house. Otherwise, your old pet may form negative associations with the new arrival.

Don't force your new pet into a crowded social situations

Even outgoing animals may not want to socialize during their transition period into a new home. Jme Thomas, executive director of Motley Zoo Animal Rescue, told INSIDER that putting your new pet in crowded social situations can make them unnecessarily stressed.

Thomas advised that things like planning a welcome party for your pet, taking them to a friend's house to show them off, or bringing your pet to the dog park can be too overwhelming for a new pet. Instead, allow them to adjust to their new home and family quietly and gradually before attempting to socialize.

Look for signs of illness in the first couple of weeks

It's always a good idea to make sure your new pet has been examined by a veterinarian prior to and after adoption or sale. Even after you get your pet home, you should still be alert to signs of trouble.

"Look out for signs of illness including lethargy, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, lack of appetite, scratching, or hair loss. Seek veterinary attention if these exist," advised Dr. Ochoa.

Make sure your new pet has its own space and toys

Just like humans, pets like to have a place to call their own. Make sure each pet has their own private space, such as a crate, to which they can retreat, said Dr. Landis-Hannah.

Dogs in partially are naturally possessive of their own toys, bones, and other "personal" items. Until your newer dog is more settled, you may want to put your other dog's prized possessions away to avoid conflict. Give the items back to your older dog when you're sure everyone's getting along and don't forget to give the new dog its own special items.

Be consistent with training to make settling in easier

When bringing home a new pet, try to create a daily routine and stick with it. Set down house rules and make sure your pet knows what to expect. Practice simple commands such as "sit" or "come" with your dog or make sure your new cat knows where the litter box is, praising your pet each time they do what you want.

"Being consistent with training helps pets understand what behavior you want and provides a solid routine. This can help them feel comfortable and confident," said Dr. Landis-Hannah.

Don't allow your new pet to form bad habits

When you're helping a new pet adjust to your home, it's important to establish the rules from the minute they step inside.  

"It's harder to break a bad habit than to just start out right. Don't let your new pet 'settle in' and then make things difficult for them by suddenly altering what's expected of them," said Thomas.

For example, don't allow your new puppy to sleep in bed with you on the first night unless you plan on allowing it every night. Having clear-cut expectations from the beginning will help everyone be happier, humans included.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tesla has a mini Model S for kids that costs $600, and this family bought it to teach their child about driving electric

• President Trump's blacklisting of Huawei led Google to announce that it would be pulling its Android license from smartphones made by the Chinese manufacturing giant.
• That means users with new Huawei devices will no longer be able to download apps from the Play Store, which could cost the tech giant hundreds of millions of dollars per year. 
• Analysts at Nomura Instinet wrote that Google could lose between $375 million and $425 million per year in a "worst case" scenario from the Huawei ban.
• Managing Director at Wedbush Securities, Dan Ives, estimates that it will be closer to $150 million to $200 million per year.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Google's decision to cut off China's Huawei could cost it as much as $425 million in lost annual revenue.

That's the estimate from equity research firm Nomura Instinet, which crunched the numbers in response to the news that Google will no longer license its Android smartphone software to Huawei.

Google doesn't have much choice in the matter. The Trump administration placed Huawei on a blacklist this month, making it almost impossible for US companies to do business with the Chinese smartphone and telecom equipment maker. 

That means new Huawei devices in markets around the world will no longer be able to run the version of Android that comes with all the latest security patches, access cutting-edge Google services like Assistant, or download apps from the Google Play store. 

Huawei's breakup with the Google Play store, in which Google typically takes a 30% cut of every transaction, is where Google stands to lose the most. Instinet pegs the general range in potential lost Play Store sales for Google between $375 million to $425 million. 

The biggest impact will be in Europe

Instinet estimated that Huawei currently has around 500 million smartphone users worldwide.

But 52% of Huawei phone owners are in China, where Google Play is not available, according to Instinet's estimates. So Google would only feel an impact in markets — like Europe and Asia (excluding China) — where it profits from app sales today.  

Google generated $7 billion in global Play Store sales in 2018, Instinet estimates. The portion of that $7 billion that comes from Huawei phones is likely around $388 million, according to Instinet's calculations. The biggest driver of that revenue is in Europe, where Google generated $190 million from Play Store sales on Huawei devices last year, Instinet reckons. Huawei users in Asia (excluding China) contributed about $137 million in Play Store sales, according the report.

Huawei "switchers" will make a difference

That blow would likely be softened, they wrote, because some users will switch to phones from another manufacturer to be able to access a fully-loaded Android experience. Huawei has announced it was developing its own operating system to replace Android on its devices, but experts are highly skeptical that consumers will react positively to the switch. 

"You can build a different OS... but what are consumers going to do for search, for maps, for YouTube?" Carolina Milanesi, Principal Analyst at Creative Strategies, told Business Insider in a recent interview. "All of these things have alternatives, but why would I do that? It's not like Huawei's phones are that amazing that I would forego all the services I've been using for years."

Read more: Google has more control over Android than we realize, and right now, companies like Huawei have no other choice but to accept that

Colin Sebastian, Senior Equity Research Analyst at Baird & Co., told Business Insider that he thinks "most impacted [Huawei] users" will start looking to switch to devices made by other companies. 

"My general assumption is that since there aren't really viable alternatives to Android/Google apps (except for Apple), then most impacted users would migrate to other Android devices," Sebastian said. "Obviously there could be a transition period, but my guess is it would happen pretty quickly." 

Others, like Managing Director at Wedbush Securities Dan Ives, think Huawei will some lose market share in places like Europe, but that it won't be a doomsday scenario for the world's second-largest smartphone manufacturer. 

In terms of revenue losses for Google, Ives estimates that it will be closer to $150 million to $200 million per year. And for a company that brought in over $130 billion in revenue in 2018, Ives said these upcoming losses are a "rounding error" for the tech giant and that "ultimately the bark may be a lot worse than the bite." 

Do you work at Google? Got a tip? Contact this reporter via Signal or WhatsApp at +1 (209) 730-3387 using a non-work phone, email at nbastone@businessinsider.com, Telegram at nickbastone, or Twitter DM at @nickbastone.

SEE ALSO: A longtime industry expert explains why Trump's attack on Huawei could end up hurting Google and other US tech giants

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I tried $600 smart glasses and learned why they haven't replaced smartphones yet

• Melanie Lockert graduated from college with $81,000 in student loans, and spent several years paying the minimum amount due every month.
• When she still had $68,000 of debt left after getting her Masters degree, she decided to get serious about paying off her debt, and implemented the debt avalanche.
• She then put her energy toward earning more, took advantage of any freebies that could lower her cost of living, put cash back toward her loans, and adjusted her tax withholding.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

When I graduated in May 2011, I was filled with anxiety about my student loans.

I had just graduated with my Master's in Performance Studies from New York University. For my BA, I had borrowed $23,000 and for my MA I borrowed $58,000. Between graduating with my BA in 2006 and getting my Master's, I treated my student loan payment like a bill and just paid the minimum.

But after several years of payment and taking on more debt, I graduated and still had $68,000 left. Once I got serious about my debt and faced my debt head-on, I was able to make progress and paid off the $68,000 I had left in less than five years.

Here are the six strategies I used to get out of $81,000 in student loan debt.

1. I used the debt avalanche method

My Grad PLUS loans had interest rates of 6.8% and 7.9%, whereas my undergraduate loans had interest rates at less than 3% (I can no longer remember exactly how much). When I calculated how much money I was spending on interest, it came to $11 per day. After that, I knew I had to ditch my high-interest debt first.

I used the debt avalanche method where I paid the minimum on all my loans, while throwing extra cash at my highest interest debt — the 7.9% loans. I continued to do this, until that was paid off, and then threw extra cash at the 6.8% loans, and so on and so forth. The avalanche method will help you save money on interest over time, which can mean putting more toward your principal balance.

2. I made biweekly payments

One thing I didn't realize about student loan debt is that the interest accrues daily. In order to combat the interest that was growing each day, I changed up my strategy. Instead of making monthly payments as required, I made biweekly payments. I divided my monthly payment in two and paid that amount every two weeks. This helped me keep the interest more manageable without even having to pay more.

3. I put my energy toward earning more

After graduating and not finding a full-time job, I moved to Portland, Oregon. I cut my expenses in half but still only found temp work making $10 to $12 per hour. I had scaled back as much as I could. That's when I realized if I wanted to make real progress on my debt, I had to focus on earning more.

I began to side hustle any way I could. I worked as a brand ambassador, working as the public face of a company at public events. I pet sat for coworkers, found gigs on TaskRabbit like helping someone move, and once I found a gig on Craigslist where I ended up selling water bottles overnight at an underground dance party.

The holiday season was especially lucrative. I worked for a wealthy family assisting with their Halloween party. I worked as a coat check for holiday parties. I pet sat during Thanksgiving and passed out appetizers during Christmas parties. Any gig I could find, I'd do. I put all that extra money toward my debt.

4. I took advantage of free items

One way I was able to keep my expenses low was to take advantage of free stuff. I was lucky enough to get some free samples of soap, free coupons for food items, etc. with my brand ambassador side hustle.

I started working as an event assistant for a congregation. From that side hustle, there were many leftover items of food and wine, which helped lower my food budget.

If I had to shop and buy something, I researched free coupon codes by typing "[company] + coupon code". Taking advantage of free things helped keep my expenses low.

5. I put my cash back toward my loans

If I had to spend money on something, I wanted to make sure I was making some money in return. When I shopped online, I used Ebates, a site where you can get cash back at certain retailers.

I also had the Capital One Quicksilver card, where I got 1.5% cash back on all my purchases.

These are the best cash-back credit cards of 2019 »

I took the cash back that I got from Ebates and my credit card and put it toward my student loans.

6. I adjusted my tax withholding

Like most people, I was excited every year to receive a tax refund. But then I realized I'd be better off adjusting my tax withholding and boosting my paycheck each month. That way, instead of receiving a lump sum once a year, I'd have more money to work with each month. I used that extra buffer of cash to put more toward my student loans.

Becoming debt-free has been one of the great joys of my life. It wasn't easy or glamorous. It took a lot of dedication and hard work. Using these six strategies, I was able to streamline the debt payoff process and get out of debt faster.

• Read more about paying off student loans:
• I paid off $40,000 of student loans in 2 years thanks to a math-based strategy I'd recommend to just about anyone
• Here's exactly how much time and money you can shave off your student loans by paying $100 more each month
• I paid off $40,000 of student loans in 2 years thanks to 3 smart habits
• A financial planner has advice for a 30-something with over $100,000 in student loans who wants to buy a house near San Francisco: Don't

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 details in 'Game of Thrones' season 8 episode 4 you may have missed

• Silicon Valley executives are among the richest people on the planet.
• They are also among the most famous, and can become a lightning rod for public anger.
• They spend millions on security measures: hiring armed bodyguards, installing bulletproof panels in their offices, and installing rumored escape passages.
• Scroll on to see how much the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos spend on security.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Silicon Valley contains a high concentration of the world's richest tech billionaires, many of whom spend huge amounts on personal security measures.

Public filings can give us some insight into how much tech moguls spend on security, as their companies shell out millions to keep their executives safe, sometimes by buying them commodities like private planes.

Read more:These are the eccentric eating, sleeping, wellness, and workout regimes of the world's top tech billionaires

Public records are just the tip of the iceberg, as Silicon Valley's richest can supplement their security costs out of their own (considerably deep) pockets.

Here, in ascending order, is how much tech's C-suite stars spend on security.

Jack Dorsey: $68,500 at last count.

Jack Dorsey's security costs were last revealed in 2016 in an SEC filing that showed Twitter paid him $68,506 for "residential security and protective detail."

Otherwise, Dorsey declined all compensation, a practice which he has more or less continued — his 2018 salary amounted to $1.40.

See more:Twitter paid CEO Jack Dorsey just $1.40 as his salary in 2018 — and that was a pay raise

Eric Schmidt: $296,353

Schmidt stepped down as Google chairman in 2018, and the previous year the company spent just under $300,000 on Schmidt's personal security. Forbes currently puts Schmidt's net worth at $13.2 billion.

Source: Forbes

Tim Cook: $310,000

Apple spent $310,000 on CEO Tim Cook in 2018, according to a proxy statement filed in January of this year. By Silicon Valley standards, this is a very humble expenditure — especially considering Apple regularly dips in and out of being the world's most valuable company.

Source: Wired

Sundar Pichai: $1.2 million.

Google spent $1.2 million on security CEO Sundar Pichai in 2018, almost double the previous year when he was handed $680,000 for personal protection.

Source: Business Insider

The sudden uptick in Pichai's security expenditure came months after an active shooter entered YouTube's San Bruno campus, injuring three employees.

Pichai's new "overall security program" was approved in July 2018, three months after Nasim Najafi Aghdam shot three people and then herself at YouTube HQ in San Bruno. Following the attack, YouTube announced that it was stepping up its security in general.

A Google spokesperson told Business Insider's Nick Bastone that stepping up Pichai's security was part of a more general trend — Pichai's security cost also doubled between 2016 and 2017.

Source: Business Insider

Jeff Bezos: $1.6 million.

The world's richest man doesn't spend the most on security — at least not publicly. Forbes reports that the amount Amazon shells out for Bezos' security hasn't changed since 2012 despite the billionaire's wealth growing by approximately $113 billion. An Amazon spokesperson said Bezos pays separately for his personal security.

Source: Forbes

Bezos recently had bulletproof panels installed in his office.

A Seattle city planning permit, spotted by the Daily Beast, showed that Amazon applied to install bulletproof panels in Bezos' office in November 2018, and was granted permission in January. The panels cost $180,000 to install and can withstand multiple shots from a military assault rifle.

Source: The Daily Beast

Bezos' personal protection bills aren't available to scrutinize, but this year his security chief said the billionaire wrote him a blank check to launch a private investigation.

After Jeff Bezos' intimate texts to former TV anchor Lauren Sanchez were leaked to The National Enquirer, Bezos hired his personal security chief Gavin de Becker to investigate the source of the leak.

Writing in The Daily Beast in March, de Becker said Bezos told him to "spend whatever is needed" to get to the root of how his texts were obtained by The Enquirer.

De Becker's investigation concluded, "with high confidence" that Saudi Arabia was behind the leak, due to Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post and the paper's coverage of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Source: The Daily Beast

Larry Ellison: $1.6 million

Oracle pays the annual costs of protecting CTO and cofounder Larry Ellison's "primary residence," which Forbes speculated is likely to be his Japanese-architecture-inspired Woodside estate in California, although the company declined to comment.

Source: Wired and Forbes

Dara Khosrowshahi: $2 million.

Uber's recent IPO filing revealed that CEO Dara Khosrowshahi's compensation included $2 million for "security costs," roughly equivalent to his bonus.

Sheryl Sandberg: $2.9 million.

Sandberg's security costs climbed by $200,000 in 2018, and Facebook spent $1 million on private aircraft travel for the COO.

Source: Business Insider

Mark Zuckerberg: $20 million.

Zuckerberg's security costs skyrocketed in tandem with the company's disastrous 2018.

Facebook spent $10 million on personal protection for Zuckerberg last year, up $2.5 million from the year before. He was also given a "pre-tax allowance" of $10 million for "additional costs" to do with keeping both himself and his family safe.

In an SEC filing, the company said that public rage directed towards Facebook was part of the reason for Zuckerberg's high security spend.

"He is synonymous with Facebook, and as a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr. Zuckerberg," Facebook said.

Source: Business Insider

Zuckerberg's security detail includes 24/7 protection.

Business Insider's Rob Price published a 5,000-word investigation into Facebook's security operations, and discovered that Zuckerberg is constantly protected by armed executive protection officers who stand guard outside his Bay Area homes — at least one of which is equipped with a panic room.

Source: Business Insider

The Facebook CEO is even rumored to have an escape passage under his conference room.

Price discovered a popular rumor among Facebook employees is that Zuckerberg has a "panic chute" in case him and his team need to evacuate the offices. One source told Price they had been briefed on the passageway's existence. Facebook declined to comment.

Source: Business Insider

Elon Musk: Unclear.

One of the most bombastic and divisive personalities to dominate Silicon Valley, Elon Musk's security costs are not readily available.

Tesla declined to comment when contacted by Business Insider.

In November 2018, the Tesla CEO tweeted that one of his other ventures, The Boring Company, was looking for someone to guard a Monty Python-inspired watchtower.

Specifically, Musk said that he needed, "a knight to yell insults at people in a French accent."

Source: Business Insider

Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin haven't revealed their security costs in many years.

The last time Google disclosed security costs for its cofounders was in 2006, when it gave Larry Page $33,195 for transportation, logistics, and personal security. Page is now CEO at Google's parent company Alphabet, which also hasn't disclosed security expenditure for him.

Source: Forbes

• Boris Johnson has announced that he will run to replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative party, who will resign on June 7.
• Johnson is the bookies' favourite to take over from the PM.
• Business Insider has taken a look at the former foreign secretary's long history of controversies and gaffes.
• Visit Business Insider's home page for more stories.

LONDON — Boris Johnson is the current frontrunner to replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party after she announced that she would step down in June to pave the way for a new prime minister.

The former foreign secretary is the current bookies' favourite to take the keys to Downing Street when she resigns, which is likely to happen in July.

Read more:Here are the frontrunners to replace Theresa May as Conservative party leader and prime minister

Business Insider has taken a look at Johnson's long history of controversies and gaffes, which include calling gay men "tank-topped bumboys," reciting colonial poetry in Burma, and rugby-tackling a 10-year-old child.

August 2018: Muslim women in burkas 'look like letter boxes'

Johnson was accused of Islamophobia in 2018 after he wrote that Muslim women wearing burkas "look like letter boxes."

Writing in the Telegraph newspaper, he said: "If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you.

"If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree - and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran.

"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."

The Muslim Council of Britain accused him of "pandering to the far right" and he was placed under investigation by the Conservative party, before later being cleared.

June 2018: 'F*ck business'

One of the low points in Johnson's time as foreign secretary was when he refused to deny reports that he used a swear word to describe business leaders who were concerned about the impact of Brexit. 

Asked about corporate concerns over Brexit at an event for EU diplomats, Johnson is said to have replied: "F*ck business."

October 2017: 'Dead bodies' in Libya

Writing in 2017, Johnson said the Libyan city of Sirte — large parts of which were destroyed during a brutal civil war — could be the new Dubai, adding: "All they have to do is clear the dead bodies away."

He subsequently refused to apologise for the comments.

November 2017: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe conviction

Johnson's most vulnerable moment as foreign secretary came when he was heavily criticised for making a misleading statement about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman serving a five-year jail term in Iran for alleged spying.

The then-foreign secretary said she was "simply teaching people journalism," which both her family and her employer both said was untrue. A central part of her defence was that she was simply visiting the country on holiday.

Four days later,  Zaghari-Ratcliffe was returned to court in Iran where Johnson's statement was cited as evidence against her.

September 2017: Reciting colonial poem in a Burmese temple

Johnson was accused of "incredible insensitivity" after it emerged that he had recited lines from a colonial-era Rudyard Kipling poem while on an official visit in Myanmar, formerly part of the British empire. 

Johnson was inside the Shwedagon Pagoda, one of Burma's most sacred Buddhist sites, when he began reciting lines from The Road to Mandalay, including one which ran: "The temple bells they say/ Come you back you English soldier."

The UK ambassador to Myanmar, Andrew Patrick, was forced to stop Johnson from reading out further lines from the poem, telling him it was "not appropriate."

May 2017: Johnson discusses alcohol in Sikh temple

Johnson was described as "out of touch" after discussing the export of Scotch whisky during a visit to a Sikh temple.

He told gathered worshippers: "Whenever we go to India, to Mumbai or to Delhi, we have to bring 'clinkie' in our luggage.

"We have to bring Johnnie Walker, we have to bring whisky because as you may know there is a duty of 150% in India on imports of Scotch whisky so we have to bring it in duty free for our relatives. But imagine what we could do if there was a free trade deal with India – which there will be."

Some Sikh teachings consider alcohol to be prohibited. A worshipper at the temple shouted at Johnson, saying that his comments were "absolutely outrageous" and said alcohol "is against our religion."

October 2016: Johnson refers to Africa as 'that country'

In a speech reflecting on his first three months as foreign secretary, Johnson referred to Africa as "that country."

"Life expectancy in Africa has risen astonishingly as that country has entered the global economic system," he told an audience at the Conservative Party conference.

May 2016: Johnson pens poem about Turkish president having sex with a goat

In 2016, Boris Johnson won a £1,000 prize for a rude poem about the Turkish president having sex with a goat.

The poem, published by the Spectator magazine, offered the following limerick: "There was a young fellow from Ankara, Who was a terrific wankerer.

"Till he sowed his wild oats, With the help of a goat, But he didn't even stop to thankera."

April 2016: Johnson suggests 'part-Kenyan' Obama has 'ancestral dislike of the British Empire'

When he was Mayor of London, Johnson faced a barrage of criticism for saying US President Barack Obama may have had an "ancestral dislike of the British Empire" because he was "part-Kenyan."

Writing in the Sun newspaper about Obama's criticism of the Brexit campaign, Johnson recounted a claim that a bust of former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill was removed from the Oval Office after Obama was elected and returned to the British embassy.

Johnson wrote: "Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan president's ancestral dislike of the British Empire - of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender."

Obama later said of Churchill: "I love the guy."

October 2015: Boris Johnson knocks over 10-year-old child during rugby game

In 2015, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson managed to flatten an opponent in what was supposed to be an informal game of rugby in Tokyo.

The player he tackled was a ten-year-old Japanese schoolboy Toki Sekiguch.

"I'm so sorry," Johnson told the shocked child afterwards.

July 2013: Women go to university 'to find men to marry'

Johnson came under attack in 2013 for suggesting that women attend university in order to find husbands.

At an Islamic Economic Forum attended by Malaysian PM Najib Razak and Johnson, Razak said: "Before coming here, my officials have told me that the latest university intake in Malaysia, a Muslim country, 68 per cent will be women entering our universities."

Johnson interjected:"They've got to find men to marry."

August 2012: Johnson becomes stuck on zipwire

Boris Johnson stole the headlines at the 2012 Olympic Games in London after he was left dangling in the air on a zipwire holding two Union Jack flags.

To celebrate Team GB's first gold medal victory, the then Mayor of London took to a zipwire but came to a halt soon after, leaving him dangling over a crowd of onlookers.

November 2007: Hilary Clinton is like a 'sadistic nurse in a mental hospital'

Writing in the Telegraph in November 2007, when Clinton looked to be favourite to win the 2008 presidential election, Johnson said:"She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.

He later attempted to make sheepish amends for the remarks.

September 2006: 'Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism'

As an MP, Johnson was forced to issue a grovelling apology to the country of Papua New Guinea after he linked it to "cannibalism and chief-killing" in his newspaper column.

Johnson wrote in the Telegraph: "For 10 years we in the Tory party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing and so it is with a happy amazement that we watch as the madness engulfs the Labour party."

He was later forced to apologise.

December 2005: 'Pat her on the bottom and send her on her way'

In a piece marking his resignation from the Spectator,  Johnson wrote: "Once the fire is going well, you may find your eyes drifting to the lovely striped chesterfield across the room. Is it the right size, you wonder, for a snooze. . . ?"

"You come round in a panic, to find a lustrous pair of black eyes staring down at you. Relax. It's only Kimberly [Quinn, then the Spectator's publisher] with some helpful suggestions for boosting circulation."

He advised his successor to "pat her on the bottom and send her on her way."

July 2005: Islamophobia is a 'natural reaction' to Islam

In 2005, Johnson wrote in the Spectator that he believed it was only "natural" for the public to be scared of Islam.

"To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," he wrote.

"Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."

June 2005: Women are more prone to ‘weeping’ than men

Johnson waded into a debate over sexism in 2005 to defend Tim Hunt, a scientist who called for single-sex laboratories because "girls" are more likely to cry.

Writing in the Telegraph, Johnson wrote: "Is there any foundation to this casual assertion that women cry more readily than men?

"Well, yes, there is."

"Men are said to have differently shaped tear ducts, for instance, and can therefore retain the tears for longer before they splash down the cheek," he wrote.

"Women are said to have more prolactin, a hormone associated with weeping."

April 2005: ‘Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts’

In 2005, when he was campaigning to become the MP for Henley-on-Thames, Johnson said: "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."

October 2004: Liverpudlians wallow in 'victim status' over Hillsborough

Johnson was forced in 2004 to apologise for an editorial column he published as the editor of the Spectator magazine which claimed that drunken fans were partly responsible for the Hillsborough tragedy.

The editorial accused Liverpudlians of wallowing in their "victim status," stating: "The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death, however horrible, of Mr Bigley; but that is no excuse for Liverpool's failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon." 

Johnson, who was also serving as a shadow Tory arts minister, was sent to Liverpool to apologise.

January 2002: Black people are 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles'

In his Daily Telegraph column, Johnson mocked former prime minister Tony Blair's globe-trotting and said: "What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies."

He later described "watermelon smiles," a racially charged reference.

Johnson later apologised for his remarks.

January 2001: Johnson outs MI6 'spy' for 'a laugh'

In 2001, while he was editor of the Spectator magazine, Johnson published a piece suggesting a former friend and colleague had worked for the British secret service.

Johnson published a piece alleging that Agent Smallbrow, an MI6 agent, was Dominic Lawson, who was then editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

Lawson, who denied ever having been an agent, accused Johnson of putting journalists' lives at risk. 

1998: 'Tank-topped bumboys'

In a 1998 Telegraph column about Peter Mandelson's resignation from the Labour government, Johnson said the announcement would lead to the blubbing of "tank-topped bumboys" in "the Ministry of Sound" nightclub, and "the soft-lit Soho drinking clubs frequented by Mandy and his pals."

He added that Mandelson's departure would cause the "lipstick" to come away from Blair's government.

1996: 'Hot Totty' at the Labour party conference

In 1996, Johnson wrote a diary piece in the Telegraph reviewing the "hot totty" who were in attendance at the Labour conference.

"The unanimous opinion is that what has been called the 'Tottymeter' reading is higher than at any Labour Party conference in living memory," he wrote.

He adds that: "Time and again the 'Tottymeter' has gone off as a young woman delegate mounts the rostrum."

He suggested that women were turning to vote for Labour because of their natural "fickleness."However, he concludes that the real reason women are turning to Labour is because of their natural "fickleness".

• Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), the largest chipmaker in China, is delisting from the New York Stock Exchange.
• The "voluntary delisting" comes amid increased tensions between the US and China over trade and President Donald Trump's crackdown on Chinese tech companies.
• SMIC claimed its decision has nothing to do with those tensions, attributing its decision instead to low trading volumes and administrative costs.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The largest chipmaker in China has applied for a "voluntary delisting" from the New York Stock Exchange as President Donald Trump's administration increases its crackdown on Chinese tech.

Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) said in a Friday statement that it will file a form to delist with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on June 3, and cease trading on June 13.

The company, whose primary listing is in Hong Kong, specializes in integrated circuit manufacturing and works with American companies like Qualcomm and Texas Instruments. Qualcomm, the Chinese telcom giant Huawei, and Belgian nanotechnology firm imec are minority shareholders in SMIC's R&D arm.

SMIC attributed its decision to delist to "a number of considerations," which included "limited trading volume of its ADSs [American depositary shares] relative to its worldwide trading volume, and the significant administrative burden and costs" of maintaining the NYSE listings and reporting to the SEC.

Read SMIC's full statement here.

SMIC made no mention of the ongoing trade war or the US's growing crackdown on Chinese tech in its Friday statement, and insisted that its decision to delist had nothing to do with either of those factors.

Washington and Beijing are in the throes of a yearlong trade war, in which both sides have imposed billions of dollars' worth of additional tariffs on each others' products.

Read more:It's been more than a year since the US-China trade war started. Here's a timeline of everything that's happened so far.

Last week, the Trump administration labeled Chinese telcom giant Huawei a national security threat, and effectively banned it from doing business with US companies. Major tech companies in the US and around the world have severed ties with Huawei since.

There was some speculation that SMIC's decision to delist was due to the trade war, CNBC reported.

But a spokesperson for the Chinese company told CNBC: "SMIC has been considering this migration for a long time and it has nothing to do with the trade war and Huawei incident."

"The migration requires a long preparation and timing has coincided with the current trade rhetoric, which may lead to misconceptions," the spokesperson added.

It's not clear if the trade war or Trump's penalizing Chinese tech affected SMIC's American trades. Business Insider has contacted SMIC for comment.

SMIC made a profit of $746.7 million in 2018 on a $3.36 billion revenue, TechCrunch reported. Its revenue for the first quarter of 2019 was $668.9 million, which was 19% lower year-on-year, according to first-quarter earnings reported earlier this month.

Investors were caught off guard by the announcement, and the company's stock fell 4.9% on Friday, the South China Morning Post reported.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: WATCH: The legendary economist who predicted the housing crisis says the US will win the trade war

• Tatiana Calderon is one of the most prominent women in motorsport today, zipping around race tracks in her bright pink BWT Arden Formula 2 race car at breakneck speeds.
• She is just one classification below Formula 1, and after driving an F1 car for the first time in an official capacity last year, is desperate to race alongside drivers like Lewis Hamilton in motorsport's marquee Grands Prix.
• But unlike Hamilton, Calderon has battled sexism throughout her journey, and it's all because less is expected of women, she said.
• Calderon points to prominent women in the sport, in the driving seat and behind the scenes, as evidence of what women are capable of.
• And she's determined to show the world she's capable of even more.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Tatiana Calderon was 4 years old when she first got behind the wheel of a car.

She was so small her feet couldn't reach the pedals and she had to sit on her father's lap just to get a good grip on the wheel. Her father would accelerate and break, and she would steer the vehicle through her hometown streets in Bogota, Colombia.

Calderon's parents managed a Kia Motors dealership in Bogota so cars were always going to play a key role in her childhood. Even though she showed an interest in golf, hockey, and horse riding, Calderon began karting in 2002 at age 9 and never really looked back.

She told Business Insider about a time she was the only girl on a track full of boy racers who were trying, some successfully, to shunt her off course.

When she came in to pit, a mechanic said she should shunt them back. So when she returned to the track, that's exactly what she did, in style, as she went on to win that race.

Calderon flew to Spain to compete for the Juncos Racing team in the Star Mazda championship at 17 years old in 2010. She finished 10th in her first year, sixth in her second, and then moved up to Formula 3.

She drove a Formula 1 car for the first time in 2018, test driving for Sauber in its 329 km/hour C37, clocking a best lap time of 1 minute and 23.170 seconds after 23 laps at the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez in Mexico City.

This was 2.442 seconds slower than Lewis Hamilton's best lap in the 2018 Mexican Grand Prix on the same track. That gap may seem like a lot, but that was Hamilton's 12th season in Formula 1, and Calderon's very first session in an F1 car.

According to Autosport.com, Calderon compared the experience to a videogame. "The first time I accelerated, it seemed like I was on a PlayStation with how fast everything happened."

Now, Calderon is racing in a bright pink Arden car in Formula 2 and test drives for the Alfa Romeo Formula 1 team.

A test driver is an athlete who works with mechanics to help develop F1 vehicles by testing new systems on the track at high speeds and maximum efficiency. And discovering what it felt like in the cockpit of the C37 last year only enhanced her dream to drive and compete in F1 for real. It is her career goal, one she has had for more than a decade.

The 26-year-old's ascent through motorsport's classifications has been impressive, and she is now just one rung away from racing in Formula 1 itself, alongside household names like Sebastian Vettel (Ferrari), Max Verstappen (Red Bull), and, of course, Hamilton (Mercedes) himself.

But there's one challenge she's faced that Vettel, Verstappen, and Hamilton have not — she's a woman in a male-dominated sport.

People expect less from women, Calderon says

"People expect less from you … they don't really believe a woman can be as competitive as a man," Calderon told Business Insider. "They underestimate you and you have to prove yourself more than the guys. The team may not like to take a female as it's a bit of a risk, they don't know what the performance might be, and we're not given the right responsibility."

In motorsports, regardless of level, two tenths of a second can make a massive difference on a per lap basis. Matching drivers to higher performance cars can see an athlete quickly scale to the sport's summit, leaving others in the dust. "If you do not have those factors, you cannot win," Calderon said.

"Then there's the physical aspect, we have 30% less muscle than men, so we train more," she said. "We can definitely do a good job. You have to train harder than the boys. Make people believe in you, gain their respect. Show them on the stopwatch … that is the most important thing."

Though Calderon lists the Colombian racing driver Juan Pablo Montoya as an early mentor, someone who has "a great talent" and was her "inspiration growing up," over the last few years she has looked up to the former Formula 3 racer and F1 test driver Susie Wolff, a 36-year-old analyst who manages Calderon.

In other motorsports, Calderon "admires" Danica Patrick, the only woman to have ever won an IndyCar race.

There are also prominent women in the industry behind the scenes. Ellie Norman, the marketing director at F1, was a driving force behind the sport's decision to get rid of the on-track promotional models called "Grid Girls."

Read more: Furious Formula 1 'grid girls' who were fired from their jobs say they've 'lost important income because feminists think they know best'

There is also a strategy engineer Calderon knows well through Alfa Romeo, Ruth Buscombe, who has been influencing racing at the higher echelons of the game.

All of these people "show what women are capable of," Calderon said.

'Anything is possible'

Calderon's race weeks are already hectic. Between social media planning for her own accounts, for Alfa Romeo, and Formula 1, she also engages frequently with engineers regarding practise runs and race strategy. She completes qualifying simulations, talks to the press, and answers questions in Spanish and in English.

Calderon finished 13th in her most recent race at Barcelona, after starting 18th on the grid. She battled with Mick Schumacher, the 20-year-old son of race legend Michael Schumacher, and is looking to take momentum into Monte Carlo, this weekend.

But she wants more. "It is my intention to reach F1," Calderon told Business Insider. "In F2 I am the first female to compete in this championship. If I can do a good job in this series, I can get to F1 in terms of performance. But you need to put a lot of things together. Sponsorship behind you, a team that believes in you. It would be a big step in my career and I'm hoping I can make the most of the opportunities."

As one of motorsport's leading women, Calderon knows she will be a role model to many young girls and boys. And to those she has a clear message.

"I come from Colombia, where we only have one race track," she said.

"I can't believe where I am now. I'm dreaming … I'm living my dream. I had determination to work hard and there are no limits to my performance to get to where I want to be. In life, sport, motorsport… you need to dream big and go for it with every tool that you have.

"Anything is possible."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I've used iPhones for nearly a decade and switched to the Samsung Galaxy S10. Now I understand Android loyalty in a way I never understood before.

• The Federal Reserve recently debated reviving its so-called Operation Twist to fight the next recession. 
• Back in 2011, the Fed exchanged short-term bonds for their longer-dated counterparts to keep some borrowing costs like mortgage rates low. 
• But minutes from the Fed's recent policy meeting showed that there are new risks to investors if this tool is adopted again. 
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

One of the big mysteries that has dogged investors since the end of the Great Recession relates to what the Federal Reserve will do with its $4 trillion-plus stockpile of bonds.

During the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, the Fed and other central banks purchased Treasurys, mortgage-backed securities, and other debt instruments to keep borrowing costs low. It was an unprecedented policy move — and it worked.

Now that there's widespread curiosity about the timing of the next recession, the Fed is scrutinizing the tools at its disposal. This much was clear in minutes of the Fed's most recent policy meeting released earlier this week.

One of the tools under consideration was the so-called Operation Twist — formally known as a Maturity Extension Program — carried out between 2011 and 2012.

Its implementation is as follows: The Fed loads up on short-term bonds so that when a downturn arrives, it can sell these for an equal number of longer-term bonds. The intended outcomes are that some long-term borrowing costs like mortgage rates are kept low and the Fed's overall balance sheet size remains steady.

However, in discussing this strategy as an option for the next recession, Fed officials flagged a number of risks that could make it a counterproductive move. 

Firstly, Fed officials said their purchases of short-term debt could increase the incentives for private companies to start issuing short-term bonds of their own. That's not an ideal outcome in a corporate-credit market already besieged by low-quality borrowers, and where the word "bubble" is frequently thrown around.

For those doubting that this is already a time bomb begging to be defused, consider that there has never been a greater share of the corporate-bond market rated BBB, the lowest rung on the investment-grade ladder.  

Secondly, Fed officials were concerned that "financial market functioning might be adversely affected" if shorter-dated bonds became too large a part of their Treasury holdings. 

Before the Fed confirmed these risks in writing, economists at Goldman Sachs speculated on them.

"While favoring shorter maturities more aggressively now would provide more ammunition for a twist by the time the next recession comes, Fed officials might worry about having too large of an unintended market impact during the reverse twist phase," Jan Hatzius, Goldman's chief economist, said in a note to clients.

He continued: "Relative to the current policy for US Treasury investment, favoring the front end would put more duration in the market, steepen the curve, and tighten financial conditions." 

We now know for sure that the Fed is worried about these adverse outcomes. 

In the end, officials said they won't need to make a decision "for some time." After all, they don't expect the next recession to arrive anytime soon. 

But should the trade war or any other recession risk heat up, this option might be too dangerous to be on the table. 

SEE ALSO: A $17 billion investor explains her uncommon tactics for finding the market's biggest cash cows — a strategy that's historically guarded against crashes

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tesla has a mini Model S for kids that costs $600, and this family bought it to teach their child about driving electric

• Steve Martocci is CEO of the music-creation platform Splice. He's also the cofounder of GroupMe, which was acquired by Skype in 2011 when it was just over a year old.
• Splice recently raised $57.5 million in its Series C funding round.
• Martocci is a cofounder of the aviation company Blade and an angel investor. He says much of his success comes down to timing and luck.
• Martocci shared some insights into the fundraising process. For example, one of the biggest questions venture capitalists have about new startups is whether there's a market for the product or service.
• As for Splice, Martocci said he's not thinking about his exit right now and doesn't want to lose control of the company the way he did with GroupMe.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Steve Martocci was 27 years old when he sold GroupMe, the text-messaging app he'd cofounded, to Skype in 2011.

GroupMe, which was designed at a 24-hour hackathon, hadn't been around longer than a year and was acquired for $85 million.

But Martocci isn't the type to cruise to early retirement — he relishes a good challenge. Most recently, Martocci took a gamble on a notoriously risky industry with the music-creation platform Splice. Subscribers download sounds they can use to make their own music, and Splice pays the artists who produced the original sounds based on number of downloads.

In March 2019, the platform closed a Series C funding round of $57.5 million, bringing its total funding to $107 million, according to Splice, which says it has 2.7 million users. Splice declined to disclose its valuation, but TechCrunch estimated that Splice could be valued around $285 million, based on the industry standard of selling 20% equity in a Series C round. 

The company recently snagged high-profile customers like record producer Boi-1da, who used Splice's drum sounds to create the song "Mob Ties" on Drake's "Scorpion" album, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Beyond the day-to-day of running Splice, Martocci is also the cofounder of aviation company Blade and an angel investor. He's also honing his leadership abilities under the tutelage of his coach Dick Costolo, former CEO of Twitter.

Among the insights he's gleaned so far from his entrepreneurial career: Timing and luck are keys to success, and getting a product-to-market fit is the hardest and most important component of building a business.

We met Martocci at Splice's headquarters in New York City's Flatiron District, where he drew on a glass tabletop to illustrate his points and proudly gave us a glimpse of the office's music studio. Our conversation touched on the makings of an effective entrepreneur, what GroupMe's acquisition looks like in hindsight, and Splice's rocky start.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Shana Lebowitz: When you first started thinking about the idea for GroupMe and your career in general, did you want to be a serial entrepreneur? 

Steve Martocci: I've known I wanted to be a software entrepreneur since sixth grade. I tried to register giftcertificates.com back when you had to fax something in to register the name. It was a really convoluted process.

I was very entrepreneurial early on, but you need to get the tools together to actually be able to pull it off. I founded a couple things, started a company called Sympact Technologies back in 2006. [I] built some really great technology, [but] it was too early. Timing and luck is at least one-third of anyone's success

Timing and luck is at least one third of anyone's success.

in entrepreneurship.

Talk about timing: I met my Splice co-founder, Matt [Aimonetti]; one of my first lead investors, Adam D'Augelli of True Ventures; [and] our current VP of engineering, Juan Pablo, all at the same conference in Colombia in 2012 or '13. We met at a conference [Pulso]; all of us happened to be there. It was pretty serendipitous.

Then I ran into Adam at a coffee shop downstairs from my apartment [in New York City]. I was like, 'Hey, we built this thing upstairs, want to come check it out?' He did. So serendipity, timing, luck, are still all very real.

A founder who sold his first startup for $85 million explains why tons of VCs rejected his second startup idea despite his success

Lebowitz: Do you feel like you have that CEO bug, and you would go on and run another company? Or do you feel like your passion still lies with creating and engineering? 

Martocci: I don't ever see myself as a good employee or working for someone else's business. The cool thing about Splice is that it's the first time in my life I don't think about other opportunities because there are so many right in front of us and in this space. In the earlier days [of] Blade, we would be thinking about just needing to build stuff all the time because I loved taking things from zero to one and loved that raw creation.

The crazy thing is now those things don't pop into my mind. There's so much to do for musicians that we can really attack endless amounts of value.

Lebowitz: Why are you not distracted right now?

Martocci: I [started] Splice on the side. I never [was] full time with it. During that era, I was still even hacking on a social network, like a new social app. I always felt like I needed to make something new. I think there was a little bit of fear that Splice wouldn't work out.

Lebowitz: Going back to what you said about the fear that Splice wouldn't work out, you had a few companies under your belt already, so you could reasonably have confidence in yourself that you could make it work out —

Martocci: I don't know about that. I think that music is pretty much the only thing you could walk in the door with [after GroupMe's success], and people would say, 'I'm not going to give you any money.'

Lebowitz: Did people say that to you a lot?

Martocci: Yes. Luckily, Union Square Ventures' Andy Weissman, who was my first investor, anchored me, and that USV team totally supported us. The True Ventures team totally supported us, too. But there have been people who made money off GroupMe who did not invest, even people who I continued to show it to round after round.

I don't really blame them, to be honest. There are so many dead bodies buried in the space. We're just in a very serious renaissance for music right now and the rise of the creative class. I think people underestimate how much content kids are forced to make these days.

Splice was at the top of Martocci's 'do not do this' list of startup ideas. Then the timing was right to pursue it.

Lebowitz: A lot of entrepreneurs either have an idea and are not sure if they should pursue it, or they're trying to search for an idea that's actually viable. Is your advice to entrepreneurs to wait until the time is right?

Martocci: GroupMe solved a problem we literally had. We were going to concerts — it was Jared [Hecht]'s idea — we're going to concerts with his friends and his girlfriend, who's his wife now. We thought, 'Why do we write email chains? We can't stay in touch at concerts; what do we do?'

And so the timing was: We had a problem, we solved it. I think if you have a direct problem, that's a real problem that's real right now.

Splice is something that, if you are a programmer who likes music, you've been like, 'Where is this?' for years. The idea was around for a long time.

I had a bunch of ideas to do after GroupMe. Splice was at the top of my 'do not do this' idea list. Because it was music. I knew the market was going to be hard. I didn't know if musicians would be able to grasp what we were doing.

Then a musician friend who had gotten into programming said, 'Do you want to hear my greatest idea ever?' And it was GitHub for music.

I was like, 'All right, you just validated it.' I heard it from the right perspective. 

Lebowitz: GroupMe and Splice were passions of yours, problems you experienced directly. How did you know that you were seeing a problem that actually affected a lot of people?

Martocci: I see it all the time with entrepreneurs, and getting product market fit is just the phase you have to get to. People wonder why they're not getting venture money, but sometimes I don't know if the market really needs this. They've got to prove it somehow.

And there are easy ways you can prove that. You can run ads about your idea and see if people click on it before you even build it. You can test if there's demand for things. There are ways to step outside what you actually have to build in order to figure out if the demand is there.

We hit it with the beginning of Studio [which lets users store their work and collaborate with others] with Splice. In the first two years, it didn't get the growth curve that we needed to out of it. We realized that the market was not ready to get to where we thought we could push. The whole market there was going to require a lot more work.

That's where the move to Sounds [which lets users download sounds from producers, artists, and sound designers] and the other parts of the platform came from, just kind of following where their creative bottlenecks were. It took time to really study and not get blinded.

A startup founder who has raised over $100 million says venture capitalists can 'sniff out' if you're starting a business just to get rich

Lebowitz: Are there parts of building a company that prove consistently challenging for you?

Martocci: Not realizing you're missing a team member for too long is [one]. Not hiring an executive assistant, it's one of those things that I thought I learned with GroupMe, since it changed my life in such a positive way.

And then at Splice I said, 'No, I can't do that, it seems like an unnecessary expense.' And you take on too much stuff yourself and then you finally hire the person and you're like, 'Oh my god, what was I doing?' After missing meetings, I was late to a lunch that probably still has affected my career. That's when I told myself, 'I have to do this.'

I think a lot of it is not building the team, trying to solve too much, and not building a team around you.

I was 27 when we sold [GroupMe]. So it's not like I have a ton of company-scaling experience underneath my belt. That was a lot of friends building an app. So I'd say continuing to try to be a great people leader is the hardest part.

From the mission perspective, it's our artists that we care about so much, like being able to tell their story instead of our story and let them shine. If we were talking about a business story, it might be different, but it's about the world, about the product. We want their stories to matter, because we're continuously trying to raise them up.

We lead every conversation with, 'By the way, we've paid out $15 million now to artists, for sounds.' So that is the story: We let them talk about the value of the product. Because that's what we're really here to do.

Lebowitz: How soon should you be thinking about your exit or your next moves for the company?

Martocci: I don't think about that at all. With Splice it's like we are in big-picture thinking all day.

We want to build the most iconic company in music history. We are going to operate the company that way. We're going to take a lot of risks and pioneer a lot of space and go after that kind of big thinking.

If that's the way you're going to do it, if you already want to use venture to do your business, you need to be thinking that way. If you're doing venture to be like, 'Oh I can sell this for a few million bucks,' you're going in wrong. They'll sniff it out. You'll hear they didn't believe [you] wanted to build a big company, you know? And so that's just really important. I think that you need to know that you're entering a space where there would be interesting [acquisitions] and stuff like that. But the outcome for us has always been a standalone app.

Lebowitz: You've been angel investing as well. Is that something you think about when you're evaluating other companies?

Martocci: Definitely. The hardest ones are the ones where you love the people as friends or human beings and you're like, 'This is great. I want to support you, but my model is really joint venture investing.' Those are the hardest conversations where you're like, 'Look, I don't think this is a venture,' or you want to help them meet other venture capitalists and be like, 'Look, dude, if you're going to articulate it like this, it doesn't fit the profile of what they're looking for.'

I think a lot of negativity people have when they meet with venture capitalists can be valid. They're not actually pitching them a venture company. The first thing you need to do is make sure the market [and] your marketing team are in place. Market size is the quickest thing that will hurt you in a venture conversation.

By the way, with Splice, we had it all the time. I think we have some of the best market data about this space, but you have to convince someone about a market [and] your plan. You are in an uphill battle.

Then there are some [VCs] that are like, 'Wait, this is a unique opportunity because we're the first ones seeing this.' But market is the hardest thing to convince VCs on.

Even if they have a kid who makes music, that doesn't mean they think that one in three kids are making [music]. I think that one's hard for them, too. I think where you end up in that one is when you might have a partner who loves it, but then they'll bring it to the firm. And the firm says, 'Yo, now you're delusional.' Because there's a groupthink thing and market size — that's very much a problem we had.

GroupMe 'never got a chance to figure out what its full opportunity was,' but Martocci still doesn't regret the acquisition

Lebowitz: I want to go back to what you said that you encountered with Splice, trying to convince people that the market is there. Is that because you were trying to do it too early or just because they didn't get it?

Martocci: There's not enough data. You're talking about a space that had 99% piracy rates, you know; there's not a comp[arison firm] to point to to be like, 'Oh, there's another public company that's doing music software that's worth billions of dollars.' When you're dealing in a market that is as fragmented as ours is and as dark because of piracy as ours is, in a space where on the consumer side, there have been so many failures, you just can't point to it. So we can come in with a lot of amazing market data. But you know, that's when you have to give them a leap of faith on market, you're starting from a rough starting point.

Lebowitz: Is that different from the other companies that you founded? Was there more data around that?

Martocci: Yeah. [Regarding GroupMe], I mean messaging, communication, social networking, all that stuff was there. I think Blade has a market story I need to figure out. Luckily transportation is a huge space. It's just like, where's that intersection of the private to commercial? There's a whole story to tell there.

GroupMe never got a chance to really figure out what its full opportunity was, and it still hurts. It still goes to the top 10 apps in the app store every back-to-school season. It's amazing when that thing just sits there.

That's, by the way, another one of the things — we are so mission driven here, it's like I can't have that happen again.

Lebowitz: You can't have what happen again?

Martocci: Not having control of the future. There's too much at stake right now. There's too much at stake for music, for musicians, for the world in our minds to let this be in someone else's hands right now. You're talking about so much market intelligence, so much work specifically about this creative process. That no one has spent the time on before; we need to be the ones to bring that [focus]. I am pretty passionate about that.

Me: When you say losing control, do you mean selling the company?

Martocci: Yes.

Lebowitz: So is that something you regret?

Martocci: No. GroupMe is a great exit. What it does is great. The hindsight of the 'Well, we have an enterprise app here' type thing, is very interesting. If timing and luck is so important, than the timing and luck of that happening the way it did — I feel very good about where I am now.

Look, no one would have gotten the music company funded if someone didn't come off a track record of that and [then] go do this crazy idea. So it's all worked out great. I'm very happy with all the outcomes.

SEE ALSO: The first-time founder's ultimate guide to pitching a VC

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Warren Buffett, the third-richest person in the world, is also one of the most frugal billionaires. Here's how he makes and spends his fortune.

• According a report on CEO compensation in 2018 from The New York Times, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was paid nearly $2.3 billion last year.
• This is more than the next 65 highest-paid CEOs combined.
• Tesla has had its share of turmoil over the last year, and its stock price has fallen dramatically since the start of 2019.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

CEOs make a lot of money, but Elon Musk blew his competition out of the water in 2018, according to a new study by The New York Times.

The study, done with the executive compensation consultancy Equilar, looked at compensation for CEOs at 200 large publicly-traded companies last year.

According to the report, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was awarded nearly $2.3 billion last year, largely in the form of stock options. The next-highest CEO on the list, Discovery's David M. Zaslav, made $129 million.

That is such a giant disparity that the Times had to "add an extra dimension" to their chart showing pay for top CEOs. While the other 199 executives on the list are represented by a standard bar chart, Musk's haul is illustrated with a two-dimensional rectangle.

To put that into perspective, the left column on the chart below shows Musk's total 2018 compensation from Tesla, while the stack of bars making up the right column show the total sum of the next 65 executives on the Times' list:

Musk's compensation package from Tesla is uncommon among top executives. Approved by Tesla's board in March 2018, the package awards options to Musk if Tesla hits specific market capitalization milestones over a decade.

Several commentators at the time noted the unusual nature of the compensation package. Business Insider's Troy Wolverton pointed out that Musk already controls a large amount of Tesla's stock, and so he already has strong incentives to boost the company's market cap.

Read more:Elon Musk and the SEC are in a fierce battle over one of Musk's tweets — here's what you need to know about their dispute

Musk's outsized compensation coincided with a tumultuous year for him and the company. In an article accompanying the CEO pay study, The Times observed that Tesla had issues with scaling up production of their cars. Further, a tweet from Musk last August suggesting that he had "funding secured" to take the company private led to a SEC investigation and ongoing legal battle.

Tesla's stock price whipsawed throughout 2018, eventually ending up about 4% over the year. In 2019, the stock has declined dramatically as the company's woes continue:

Read the full story at The New York Times»

• Read more:
• The 15 least expensive cities to live in America
• The biggest company in almost every US state
• College grads still earn more than workers with no university degree. This map shows the states with the widest salary gaps.
• 15 high-paying jobs where you can work less than 40 hours a week

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Warren Buffett, the third-richest person in the world, is also one of the most frugal billionaires. Here's how he makes and spends his fortune.

This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here. Current subscribers can read the report here. 

If we're living through a “retail apocalypse” that spells doom for brick-and-mortar retail, as many have suggested, why are e-commerce leaders like Amazon, Alibaba, and JD.com so focused on building their own brick-and-mortar networks?

It's because they want to revitalize physical stores by introducing features associated with online shopping like personalization — and a whopping 65% of consumers said personalization and promotions are most important to their shopping experiences, according to a report from Oracle cited by Chain Store Age.

Brick-and-mortar retailers have the opportunity to reap the same benefits of personalization that e-tailers do, like repeat visits and impulse purchases, but they need to invest in the right technologies and techniques to do so because they currently don’t meet shoppers’ expectations. For example, 41% of consumers expect sales associates to know about their previous purchases, but just 19% have experienced this, according to a report from Segment.

In this report, Business Insider Intelligence analyzes how physical retail’s personalization is being outperformed by e-commerce’s, and examines the value personalization holds for brick-and-mortar in particular. We also look at what techniques and technologies are available to help retailers identify and track consumers in-store, and how they can be used to bolster their personalization capabilities. Finally, we examine the different channels through which retailers can reach consumers with their personalized offerings in-store.

The companies mentioned in this report are: Amazon, Alibaba, JD.com, Intel, Mastercard, Target, Velocity Worldwide, RetailMeNot, b8ta, Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, Sitecore, Oak Labs, Calabrio, and Alegion.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the report:

• Consumers say that a personalized shopping experience can inspire loyalty and increases in spending.
• But brick-and-mortar retailers aren't meeting consumers’ in-store personalization expectations.
• The nature of online shopping gives e-commerce the upper hand when it comes to personalization.
• Physical retailers can close the gap in personalization by identifying consumers when they enter, tracking them throughout their journey, and then using that information to inform individualized offerings.
• To make the most of personalized offerings, retailers must consider how content is being presented to consumers in-store, and what the strengths of each channel are.
• If physical retailers fail to improve their in-store personalization, they risk losing sales and market share to e-commerce companies, both online and in-store.

In full, the report:

• Identifies the values of personalization to physical retailers.
• Details the reasons e-tailers currently offer better personalization than brick-and-mortar stores.
• Outlines the technologies and processes that can bolster in-store personalization.
• Discusses how retailers can best present personalized offerings in-store.

Join the conversation about this story »

• A total of six people have died, and one is presumed dead from scaling Mount Everest this week.
• The total death toll from this week alone is higher than that for all of 2018. The victims were from India, Ireland, Austria, and the US.
• The deaths come amid reports of severe overcrowding at the mountain's "death zone," an area 26,000 feet above sea level where oxygen is so limited that the body's cells start to die.
• There are only a certain number of days in the year where conditions are good enough for climbers can summit Everest.
• Visit INSIDER's homepage for more stories.

At least four more people are reported to have died on Mount Everest, taking the total death toll this week alone higher than that for all of 2018.

The latest deaths come amid reports of overcrowding on the world's highest mountain, where climbers are stuck waiting in a "death zone" for hours for the opportunity to reach the summit.

The latest victims were named as Kevin Hynes from Ireland, Ernst Landgraf from Austria, and Kalpana Das and Nihal Bagwan, both from India, according to The Guardian.

The number of people dead or presumed dead from this week alone has now reached seven. A total of five people died on Everest, and one died on the nearby Lhotse mountain last year, according to the BBC.

Hynes, a 56-year-old father of two, died in his tent 7,000 meters (22,966 feet) above sea level on Friday, after having turned back before reaching the summit, The Guardian cited his climbing group 360 Expeditions as saying.

The group added that Hynes was "one of the strongest and most experienced climbers on our team," and had summited other Everest peaks in the past, according to The Guardian. He had been accompanied with an experienced Sherpa during his last summit attempt.

Das and Bagwan died of exhaustion while scaling back down the mountain on Thursday, the BBC reported. It's not clear if they were on the same expedition.

Bagwan died of "dehydration, exhaustion and tiredness after being caught in the jam of climbers,"Reuters cited the Peak Promotion hiking agency, which had handled the climber's logistics, as saying.

It's not clear how Landgraf died. The BBC reported that a 65-year-old Austrian died on the northern Tibet side of the mountain, but did not name them.

Séamus Lawless, a professor at Ireland's Trinity College, is presumed dead after falling from the mountain on May 16, though a recovery operation remains underway, the BBC and The Guardian reported.

The latest deaths after Donald Lynn Cash, a 55-year-old from Utah, and 54-year-old Anjali S Kulkarni from Mumbai died on Wednesday, as reported by The Kathmandu Post.

Cash died on the summit after losing energy while waiting to climb up there, and "collapsed as soon as he reached the summit," the Post reported. He was helped down by two Sherpas when he collapsed again while waiting, The Guardian reported.

Kulkarni died on her way back down from Everest's summit, the Post said.

Read more:Mount Everest is so crowded that climbers are dying after being forced to queue in the 'death zone' while waiting to reach the summit, expedition companies say

The 'death zone'

Expedition companies blamed Cash and Kulkarni's deaths on exhaustion after lining up for hours in the "death zone" to summit Everest.

The death zone is an area more than 8,000 meters (26,000 feet) above sea level, where oxygen is so limited that the body's cells start to die, INSIDER's Will Martin and Sinéad Baker reported.

Prolonged time above 8,000 meters can lead to serious health issues, and even death.

Climber Nirmal Purja, who earlier this week took a photo of the severe overcrowding on Everest (which can be seen at the top of this post), told The New York Times: "I have had bottlenecks on mountains before but not this many people at such high altitude."

Read more:One stunning picture shows why climbers are dying on Mount Everest

There are only a certain number of days in the year where conditions are good enough for climbers can summit Everest. Climbers can wait for the opportunity for weeks, and then collectively rush to the top, INSIDER reported.

Jamling Tenzing, the son of Tenzing Norgay — the sherpa who was the first to summit Everest with Sir Edmund Hillary — said in 2003 that the mountain had "lost its spirit of adventure" because people were climbing it without the proper skill.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Nxivm founder Keith Raniere began his trial. Here's what happened inside the alleged sex-slave ring that recruited actresses and two billionaire heiresses.

• A massive mansion right next to the Eiffel Tower in Paris is on the market for 250 million euros, or about $280 million.
• It's the most expensive home for sale in Paris right now, according to Kalinka Realty, which is selling the home with Sindex Development of Hong Kong.
• The home has more than 113,000 square feet of living space.
• It sits in the ritzy seventh arrondissement, which is home to embassies, ministry buildings, museums, and cultural sites.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

A 113,000-square-foot mansion in Paris is on the market for 250 million euros, or about $280 million.

It's the most expensive home currently for sale in Paris, according to the Russia-based Kalinka Realty, which is selling the property with Hong Kong-based Sindex Development.

The massive mansion sits along the banks of the Seine River, right next to the city's most famous landmark: the Eiffel Tower. The price recently went up from 220 million euros — about $246 million — because of buyer interest, particularly among Russian clients, Kalinka Realty told Business Insider. 

"This is an ideal purchase for investment and similar offers — within walking distance from the [Eiffel] Tower and with views of it ..." Tatyana Burlakovskaya, head of Kalinka International, said in the listing. "Such properties are called trophy [properties]. Possession of them is not so much a question of profit as the opportunity to get a unique asset into your collection — one of a kind."

The owners of the mansion are reportedly two elderly sisters who are "representatives of a rich French dynasty," according to Kalinka Realty. But the interior and other details of the home remain a mystery to the public. 

Here's a look at the $280 million mansion.

SEE ALSO: One of the most expensive homes for sale in the Hamptons got a $30 million price cut. Take a look at the massive estate that's been on the market for almost 2 years.

DON'T MISS: 15 astounding facts about Monaco, the tiny French Riviera city-state where 32% of the population is made up of millionaires

A massive mansion right next to the Eiffel Tower in Paris is on the market for 250 million euros, or about $280 million.

It's the most expensive home for sale in Paris right now, according to Russia-based Kalinka Realty, which is selling the home with Sindex Development, a Hong Kong-based company providing legal services to the seller. 

The price recently went up from 220 million euros — about $246 million — because of buyer interest, particularly among Russian clients, Kalinka Realty told Business Insider. 

The six-story home sits along the River Seine, right next to the Eiffel Tower and the Champs de Mars, the public green space that surrounds it.

The mansion's location at the intersection of Avenue de Suffren and Quai Branly in the ritzy seventh arrondissement is one of the most sought-after areas of Paris.

The seventh arrondissement is home to embassies and ministry buildings, as well as world-renowned museums and cultural institutions.

The average price per square foot in the seventh arrondissement is about $1,235, but luxury properties can cost up to $2,787 per square foot.

According to Paris Property Group, a view of the Eiffel Tower can double or triple a property's price.

"Since the end of 2018, we've noticed increased interest in the 7th linked to Brexit with the return of French citizens from abroad who have a high budget at their disposal," Dominique de Saint Priest of the Era Saint Priest agency told Paris Property Group. 

The opulent mansion remains mysterious except to those elite few who may actually be prospective buyers.

The owners of the mansion, reportedly two elderly sisters who are "representatives of a rich French dynasty," have forbidden Kalinka Realty to publish photos of the interior and any additional details about the home, the company told Business Insider.

If the home sells for its asking price of $280 million, it would be one of the most expensive homes ever sold in the world.

But it wouldn't break the record — even within France. In 2015, Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince who has been at the center of human rights scandals such as the death of the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi,bought a 17th-century chateau just west of Paris for $300 million.

• Instagram and Twitter are two of the easiest ways for people to stay up-to-date on what's going on with celebrities and hear from them directly.
• A February study from online clothing retailer I Saw It First has found which celebrities are the most addicted to social media.
• These are the 25 most socially obsessed celebrities — see where your favorite personalities and musical artists rank.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Many of us are guilty of wasting hours out of our weeks mindlessly scrolling through our social media feeds, but we're not the only ones — celebrities do it, too. Stars, they're just like us!

Celebrities often have huge followings they need to keep updated on their daily lives, and use social media to share news about their latest projects and merchandise. For many, social media is the best and easiest way for celebrities to interact with their fans. 

Online clothing retailer I Saw It First recently conducted a study on the most social-media-addicted celebrities. The study, using data compiled at the beginning of February, is based on each celebrity's use of two of the biggest platforms for celebrities: Instagram and Twitter.

The rankings were compiled using celebrities' average number of social posts per month on Instagram and Twitter.

You might think you know who the most social-media-obsessed celebrity is, but the person who secured the No. 1 spot — by a landslide — may surprise you.

Here are the 25 most socially addicted celebrities:

SEE ALSO: These 33 adorable photos of Grumpy Cat's life and rise prove why she stole our hearts and raked in millions for her owner

25. Conor McGregor

Average number of total social posts per month: 102

Instagram followers: 31 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 25

Twitter followers: 8 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 77

24. Chris Brown

Average number of total social posts per month: 105

Instagram followers: 54 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 67

Twitter followers: 30 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 37

23. Cara Delevingne

Average number of total social posts per month: 113

Instagram followers: 42 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 38

Twitter followers: 10 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 75

22. Kendall Jenner

Average number of total social posts per month: 114

Instagram followers: 110 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 31

Twitter followers: 28 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 83

21. Rihanna

Average number of total social posts per month: 134

Instagram followers: 71 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 50

Twitter followers: 91 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 84

20. Miley Cyrus

Average number of total social posts per month: 136

Instagram followers: 94 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 42

Twitter followers: 43 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 94

19. Kourtney Kardashian

Average number of total social posts per month: 142

Instagram followers: 79 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 42

Twitter followers: 24 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 100

18. Jennifer Lopez

Average number of total social posts per month: 152

Instagram followers: 94 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 36

Twitter followers: 44 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 117

17. Camila Cabello

Average number of total social posts per month: 172

Instagram followers: 33 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 23

Twitter followers: 8 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 149

16. Gigi Hadid

Average number of total social posts per month: 174

Instagram followers: 48 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 30

Twitter followers: 9 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 144

15. Shawn Mendes

Average number of total social posts per month: 176

Instagram followers: 44 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 24

Twitter followers: 22 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 152

14. Lele Pons

Average number of total social posts per month: 185

Instagram followers: 35 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 27

Twitter followers: 2 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 158

13. Kylie Jenner

Average number of total social posts per month: 190

Instagram followers: 135 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 66

Twitter followers: 27 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 124

12. Priyanka Chopra

Average number of total social posts per month: 191

Instagram followers: 40 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 31

Twitter followers: 25 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 160

11. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Average number of total social posts per month: 270

Instagram followers: 143 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 13 million

Twitter followers: 13 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 218

10. Kim Kardashian

Average number of total social posts per month: 275

Instagram followers: 139 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 52

Twitter followers: 61 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 223

9. Justin Bieber

Average number of total social posts per month: 281

Instagram followers: 113 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 45

Twitter followers: 106 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 237

8. Cardi B

Average number of total social posts per month: 293

Instagram followers: 45 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 60

Twitter followers: 6 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 233

7. Kevin Hart

Average number of total social posts per month: 358

Instagram followers: 75 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 62

Twitter followers: 35 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 296

6. Ariana Grande

Average number of total social posts per month: 383

Instagram followers: 155 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 42

Twitter followers: 63 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 342

5. Nicki Minaj

Average number of total social posts per month: 408

Instagram followers: 102 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 80

Twitter followers: 21 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 327

4. Neymar Jr.

Average number of total social posts per month: 416

Instagram followers: 117 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 49

Twitter followers: 43 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 368

3. Khloé Kardashian

Average number of total social posts per month: 510

Instagram followers: 94 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 41

Twitter followers: 27 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 468

2. Zendaya

Average number of total social posts per month: 566

Instagram followers: 56 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 35

Twitter followers: 15 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 531

1. Snoop Dogg

Average number of total social posts per month: 647

Instagram followers: 32 million

Average number of Instagram posts per month: 382

Twitter followers: 18 million

Average number of Twitter posts per month: 265

This is a preview of a research report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about Business Insider Intelligence, click here.

Edge computing solutions are key tools that help companies grapple with rising data volumes across industries. These types of solutions are critical in allowing companies to gain more control over the data their IoT devices create and in reducing their reliance on (and the costs of) cloud computing.

These systems are becoming more sought-after — 40% of companies that provide IoT solutions reported that edge computing came up more in discussion with customers in 2017 than the year before, according to Business Insider Intelligence’s 2017 Global IoT Executive Survey. But companies need to know whether they should look into edge computing solutions, and what in particular they can hope to gain from shifting data processing and analysis from the cloud to the edge.

There are three particular types of problems that edge computing solutions are helping to combat across industries:

• Security issues. Edge computing can limit the exposure of critical data by minimizing how often it’s transmitted. Further, they pre-process data, so there’s less data to secure overall.
• Access issues. These systems help to provide live insights regardless of whether there’s a network connection available, greatly expanding where companies and organizations can use connected devices and the data they generate.
• Transmission efficiency. Edge computing solutions process data where it’s created so less needs to be sent to the cloud, leading to lower cloud storage requirements and reduced transmission cost.

In this report, Business Insider Intelligence examines how edge computing is reducing companies' reliance on cloud computing in three key industries: healthcare, telecommunications, and the automotive space. We explore how these systems mitigate issues in each sector by helping to efficiently process growing troves of data, expanding the potential realms of IoT solutions a company can offer, and bringing enhanced computing capability to remote and mobile platforms.

Here are some key takeaways from the report:

• In healthcare, companies and organizations are using edge computing to improve telemedicine and remote monitoring capabilities.
• For telecommunications companies, edge computing is helping to reduce network congestion and enabling a shift toward the IoT platform market.
• And in the automotive space, edge computing systems are enabling companies to increase the capabilities of connected cars and trucks and approach autonomy.

In full, the report:

• Explores the key advantages edge computing solutions can provide.
• Highlights the circumstances when companies should look into edge systems.
• Identifies key vendors and partners in specific industries while showcasing case studies of successful edge computing programs.

  Subscribe to a Premium pass to Business Insider Intelligence and gain immediate access to:

  	This report and more than 250 other expertly researched reports
  	Access to all future reports and daily newsletters
  	Forecasts of new and emerging technologies in your industry
  	And more!

  Learn More
  

  Purchase & download the full report from our research store

Join the conversation about this story »

You’ve likely heard the phrase Internet of Things, or IoT, at some point if you have been following any tech news in the last several years.

But at the same time, you might be scratching your head figuring out what it is or what it means past a flashy buzzword.

Simply put, the IoT refers to the connection of devices (other than typical fare such as computers and smartphones) to the Internet. Cars, refrigerators, juicers, wine racks, heart monitors, ovens, watches, and more are all candidates for connection.

A new report from Business Insider Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, called IoT 101: The Essential Guide to the Internet of Things, outlines the basics of the IoT and what this next wave of technology means to the everyday individual.

The report dives into key IoT terms, predictions and trends for the IoT in the next five years, the industries that the IoT will affect the most, and the biggest challenges facing the IoT.

To get your copy of this exclusive report absolutely FREE, simply click here.

Join the conversation about this story »