Storytelling: A Critical Brand Building Skill for Leaders

CFA Society Chicago hosted a storytelling event on May 14th at the Global Conference Center. The purpose of this program was to help society members claim their value using stories as a tool to highlight leadership and communication skills. Storytelling is a big part of personal branding. So, how can it help us and how do we tell a good story while remaining authentic? Daniella Levitt, president of Ovation Global Strategies and Executive Director of Leading Women Executives, engaged our right side of the brain and helped us become more comfortable talking about ourselves and the unique value proposition we bring to the table.

Storytelling shapes how others see us and embodies what we have learned about ourselves as leaders, but telling your own story can be uncomfortable. However, learning and practicing this does reap benefits because stories are 22x more effective than just rattling off a list of accomplishments. A story is a tool of authentic leadership. We started by creating the framework for our leadership stories and exploring the idea of leaders as teachers with a unique teachable point of view (TPOV). 

A TPOV includes the following attributes:

  1. In context of your role as a leader in your organization
  2. In context of your leadership identity.
  3. A direct tie-in with your leadership story and your persona brand.

Elements of this also include ideas, values, emotional energy and edge.  It should reflect how we take risks and make decisions. 

To create our TPOVs, we can create a chart mapping our leadership story placing events on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis. Organizing high events in our lives and careers above a horizontal dotted line and low events below will help uncover insights from our leadership stories. We will be able to answer questions such as: Am I a risk taker? Did my low points bring clarity and help facilitate change? These discoveries will become our TPOV.   

Levitt emphasized that developing this is an iterative process requiring reflection and feedback.  We should also develop a plan that encompasses the most important milestones we can think of and identify a small group of people who can help us move forward with the most critical aspects of our plans. 

We worked in groups at our tables on illustrating our own TPOV and the stories that would bring them to life. Levitt recommended we meet our fellow attendees again for coffee to practice and communicate our next iteration.

Levitt closed the event by providing a checklist for a good story:

  1. Know your theme and punchline.
  2. Draw from what you know.
  3. Simplicity works best.
  4. Adjust chronology as required.
  5. Make your audience care.
  6. Be passionate and value a dash of mystery, unpredictability and drama.

Hopefully with a TPOV and personal story, we will all feel better prepared the next time someone says “Tell me a little bit about yourself”. 

Distinguished Speaker Series: Charles K. Bobrinskoy, Ariel Investments

Some investors have great analytical skills in assessing current and potential future investments, but the best investors also possess an uncanny ability to both recognize and combat their own behavioral tendencies when making investment decisions. This was the topic of Charles “Charlie” Bobrinskoy’s presentation to a packed room of eager members of CFA Society Chicago and local investment professionals at the Society’s Distinguished Speaker Series luncheon held on May 15, 2019. The program titled, “Combating Unhealthy Behavioral Tendencies in an Investment Firm” discussed how Bobrinskoy’s firm Ariel Investments has adjusted its investment process to incorporate the latest academic findings in the field of Behavioral Economics, and how these process improvements have helped Ariel’s flagship Mutual Fund, The Ariel Fund, become number #1 in its mid-cap value category over the last 10 years.

As way of background, Charles Bobrinskoy is the vice chairman and head of Investment Group for Ariel Investments. Headquartered in Chicago, the firm offers six mutual funds for individual investors and defined contribution plans as well as separately managed accounts for institutions and high net worth individuals. He manages their focused value strategy—an all-cap, concentrated portfolio of U.S. stocks. Bobrinskoy also spearheads Ariel’s thought leadership efforts and takes an active role in representing Ariel’s investment strategies with prospective investors, clients and major media. Additionally, he is a member of the Ariel Investments board of directors. Bobrinskoy is frequently quoted in various news publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, Money and USA Today, is a regular contributor to CNBC, and is frequently a guest on Bloomberg Radio.

Many in the room with a CFA curriculum under their belts were familiar with the inherent behavioral biases in our decision making, but Brobinskoy started off by suggesting that he not only was going to share with us the most influential biases, but more importantly, he was going to teach us how to combat them.  Some economists believe that no matter how much we recognize behavioral biases, we are helpless in trying to combat them.  Bobrinskoy and Ariel Investments don’t believe this, and they have purposefully instituted structural processes to combat each bias.

Before jumping into each bias, there are four common observations in the markets that defy efficient markets. The existence of behavioral finance is why each of these market anomalies exist.

  • Stocks beat bonds over the long term.
  • Until the last 10 years, value has consistently outperformed growth.
  • Small caps outperform large caps.
  • And finally, there is momentum in every asset class.

Here is what we learned by bias, in no particular order.

  • Confirmation bias. The tendency to seek data that is compatible with beliefs currently held and to reject conflicting data. Unfortunately, the smarter you are, the more susceptible you are to confirmation bias. A common example is people watch Fox News if they are a Republican and MSNBC if they are a Democrat.

Ways to combat: Appoint a fellow research analyst to play Devil’s Advocate. Challenging another analyst’s assumptions is inherently difficult because it creates conflict. Official appointment of a devil’s advocate actually removes the conflict inherent in challenging someone else’s assumptions because it is his/her job to contradict initial assumptions.

  • Overconfidence bias. The tendency to overestimate what one knows and underestimate the uncertainties of the future.

Ways to combat: Place probabilities on outcomes, and ask for feedback on those probabilities. Ask questions to narrow down the range on probabilities.

  • Anchoring on prior estimates. The tendency to adjust prior estimates insufficiently when presented with new information.   This is why momentum exists in the markets. 

Ways to combat: You need a culture that does not penalize analysts for revisions. Encourage analysts to change their views based on new information that is learned in the market.

  • Loss Aversion. The tendency to overweight losses relative to gains.  This is why there an equity premium.  Investors are willing to accept a certain $5 gain, versus an expected return of $10.

Ways to combat: Ignore your costs basis. Examine each investment decision as if you didn’t own the stock.  Ask yourself, “Would you buy it again today?”

  • Endowment Effect. The tendency to overvalue that which one owns versus that which one doesn’t own.  

Ways to combat: Keep a watch list of what you don’t own that is comparable to what you do own. Look at the data as if you didn’t have any portfolio positions in play and ask, “If I had fresh capital, what would I own today?”

  • Reliance on Intuition over Data. The tendency to think one’s gut instinct is superior to data and to overestimate the significance of very small samples. Model based decisions are always better than guy instinct.

Ways to combat: Always trust the data over intuition. Ask yourself if a decision is data based or on gut instinct. 

  • Vividness/Recency effect. The tendency to measure frequency by one’s ability to think of example which in turn produces a tendency to overweight recent examples.

Ways to combat: Be required to have several examples to prove your point.

For further reading, Brobinskoy suggested three books:

  • Thinking in Bets by Annie Duke.
  • Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
  • Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics by Richard Thaler

Last but not least, if you’re a Republican, challenge yourself to watch MSNBC.  If you’re a Democrat, challenge yourself to watch Fox News!

Karyl Innis: Building a Distinguished Career through Personal Branding

The CFA Society Chicago Women’s Network hosted the third event of its four-part Alan Meder Empowerment Series on March 15th at The University Club. The series is intended to support career development and the advancement of women in the investment management profession. This event also attracted a number of men who were interested in the universal topic of Personal Branding.

In today’s workplace how you articulate your value proposition to the organization can make or break your career possibilities. Advocating for yourself, articulating your value and utilizing your branding statement as a part of your personal development strategy are all crucial to long term career success.  Your future at work is tied to who you think you are, as well as who your customers, clients, partners and prospects think you are.

This interactive session was led by Karyl Innis who knows why successful people succeed and, when they don’t, how to help them. She is a career expert, CEO and founder of The Innis Company, a global career management firm, and one of the most successful woman-owned businesses in the country.

Innis took the podium and quickly asked the audience “What do you think of me?” Write down one word that answers that question.  She then asked us to contemplate “what does that word mean to you?” and “what about me made you think that?” She then noted that we’d return to this topic later.

Innis went on to share that how you talk about yourself and how you let others talk about you is a career accelerator or killer! She next asked “how many of you have a brand?” By show of hands, about half the room indicated they have a brand and the other half felt that they didn’t.

Lesson #1: Everyone has a personal brand!  You may or may not know what it is; you may think you know, or you may think it is one thing while others think it’s something else.  You may like the brand people bandy about when they speak of you, or you may want to change it.  Why does personal brand matter?  Because people make decisions based on what they think they know about you. The more you/others hear what your “brand” is, the more it becomes truth and reality. Your brand is other people’s perception of you – rightly or wrongly.  That’s why it’s so important for you to be in charge of your narrative!

Take Oprah for example, she has a personal brand.  She has a lot of other stuff too – television networks, property, copyrights, licenses, and that very valuable personal brand of hers.  Some say the value of that personal brand is worth a tidy 2.4 billion dollars. So what do you get for that $2.4 billion?  Nothing – her brand belongs to her and your brand belongs to you. Oprah’s brand solidifies her reputation, transmits what matters to her, and creates future opportunities for her. Her brand does that for her and your brand can do that for you!

Lesson #2: Brand messaging and brand are different. Brand messaging = Look, Act, Sound, Say. Your brand is how people think and feel about you – it’s a combination of a thought and a feeling. Brand is the place YOU occupy in the decision maker’s mind relative to all others. It’s similar to the place a product occupies in your mind. 

Consider three pairs of leopard shoes: one from Target; one from Nine West; one from Jimmy Choo.  You have a different perception of each shoe based on various factors such as durability, price, styling, etc. Based on these factors you position and differentiate the shoes in your mind and have reasoning for why you would choose one over the other. There is a premium brand, a middle of the road brand, and a low-end brand.   This same positioning and differentiating translates to human capital hiring – are you worth the money? You want to be the premium brand!

Lesson #3: We tend to position ourselves as average. We talk about ourselves with average words, yet we want more pay and more responsibility! We should be using premium words to describe ourselves and our capabilities.  There are A, B, and C levels of words to describe your brand. People frequently use “competent” to describe themselves, when in fact this is a C-level adjective with broad interpretation (having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully – capable, able, adept, qualified). The elevated or “A” version of this adjective is expert or executive.  Use A-level words to describe yourself and your competencies. How valuable is your personal brand? The more premium you are, the more you can command!

Start creating your brand by selecting three premium words which convey what you want your leader, hiring manager, or others to think of you. 

“A” Words                                                           “C” Words

Expert                                                                   Competent

Authority                                                             Skilled

Strategist                                                             Doer

Master                                                                 Reliable

Visionary                                                             Action-Oriented

Talent Scout

Champion

Guru

Futurist

Leader

Brand makes a difference – you will be hired for what you know and how you’ve applied it:

  • Oil and gas banker – an executive that fixes broken businesses
  • Client service advocate (voice of the client) – leader for everyone
  • Hard worker – powerful leader of people and teams

Lesson #4: Have what it takes to create an initial impression. Brand also has to do with how you look and how you deliver your message.  Initial impressions are key and based on the following: 55% visual; 38% vocal; 7% verbal (this goes up to 22% if you’re talking on a continuum). Everything from the tilt of your head, shoulder positioning, hand and leg placement, clothing, and smile factor in to how you are perceived by others. 

This takes us back to the start of Innis’ presentation when she asked the audience to write down one word describing her, before she had even delved into her presentation. This word was our first impression of her. Since she had barely spoken people’s perceptions of her were largely visual, as findings show.

Creating Your Personal Brand

Like those of us in the audience, you may be wondering how get an accurate assessment of your current brand. Innis suggests gathering performance reviews, email compliments, bio’s, casual notes, etc.  Additionally, interview at least five people, asking them all the same questions, clarifying with them what you thought they were telling you and recording their answers. The takeaways from these various sources will help you gain insight into others’ perceptions of your brand.

In the world of work, you will be talked about. People will describe you as they introduce, evaluate and sponsor you by using a succinct description attached to your name. It’s important that you control the brand attached to you and that it be one that accelerates your career and not one that stalls it. It takes about 18 months for a rebrand to take root, so write yours today!  If you desire Karyl’s help in crafting your brand, she can be reached at info@inniscompany.com

To learn more about career development and advancement, read about the previous events of the series – “Taking Control of Your Career” and “Tips and Tricks for Negotiating for Yourself” on the CFA Society Chicago blog.

Distinguished Speaker Series: Sheila Penrose, Jones Lang LaSalle

On April 9th, CFA Society Chicago’s Distinguished Speaker Series Advisory Group welcomed Sheila Penrose at The Metropolitan. Penrose is Non-Executive Lead Independent Chairman of the Board at Jones Lang LaSalle, a global real estate services company, and also serves on the Board of Directors for McDonald’s. Penrose retired from Northern Trust in 2000. In her 23 years at Northern Trust, she served as President of Corporate and Institutional Services and as a member of the Management Committee, where she was the first woman to serve. Subsequently, she served as an Executive Advisor to The Boston Consulting Group from 2001 to 2007. She has been on the boards of Entrust Datacard Group, eFunds Corporation, and Nalco Chemical Corp. She has also served on the advisory board of the Gender Parity initiative of the World Economic Forum, the board of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and as a founding member of the US 30% Club, a group whose initiative is to achieve female representation of at least 30% on corporate boards.

After detailing some of her credentials and experience, Penrose highlighted three topics she wanted to explore:

  1. What issues are boards of directors discussing the most?
  2. How are boards of directors handling the evolution of the business environment?
  3. How do a group of highly ambitious, competitive and capable people, all of whom are used to leading others, form a functioning team that can effectively oversee a company?

She emphasized that in each topic, boards are fiduciaries for both shareholders and stakeholders, and need to understand how to balance the needs of both groups. She also emphasized that individual board members should be listening and learning all the time, while contributing and remaining objective.

Penrose expounded upon the recent transformation of the business environment as it relates to the board of directors.  Recently, boards have become less dominated by the executive. The CEO/Chairman dual role that was so common in previous years is now no longer as accepted as it once was. This was spurred by Sarbanes-Oxley, but also investors and employees who now have more of a voice shareholder activism has increased. Digital disruption has also been a major category for boards to tackle, and relatedly, managing corporate reputation in an age of social media, where all voices have access to the public. Diversity on boards, and not just different kinds of people, but different viewpoints, has also been an important topic. Boards have been seeking to find people who have different types of experience and different types of expertise, as opposed to finding a group of CEOs for the board. Boards need to develop consensus, not groupthink. She brought up the dilemma of cybersecurity. Boards must wrestle with the questions of how much cybersecurity is enough and how quickly the company can react in the event of a breach. Boards must also consider the impact of global events, as almost all large corporations are now global in reach. Lastly, and importantly, she discussed the issue of talent and corporate culture. Boards must grapple with the future of work and the changes in expectations of their employees. Companies assume they will be able to find the skills they need in the labor market, but they are not doing much to develop those skills in employees and not moving quickly enough to develop people whose jobs might be redundant in the future.

Boards also have to understand how best to find directors. With the changing business environment, new skills are often necessary, and boards have begun looking for people who have those skills, such as digital experience, to help them stay current.

The composition of the board, its dynamic, and its leadership are all critically important. The board should be “collegial but not clubby”, and board decisions should be made in the room, not in private meetings.  Board members should maintain a healthy balance of both listening and contributing.

Individual board members should have what Penrose called “The Four Cs.”

  • Curiosity
  • Conviction
  • Courage
  • Compassion

During the Q&A portion of the event, Penrose described how she believes someone can become a member of a board of directors. She said the individual must have a good reason for why they want to join a board, should be strongly curious and constantly learning, should have experience trying to manage a business on some level, and should be wary of joining a board too quickly. Joining a board too quickly usually means that board is likely of lower quality, and the first board you join dictates one’s future opportunities.

The Equity Risk Premium: Applications for Investment Decision-Making

Professor Aswath Damodaran’s opening remarks at CFA Society Chicago’s Equity Risk Premium event on April 2, 2019 at the W Chicago City Center.

Aswath Damodaran, Kerschner Family Chair in Finance Education and a Professor of Finance at New York University Stern School of Business, is well known for his books and articles in the fields of valuation, corporate finance, and investment management, philosophies, and strategies. On April 2, he treated the CFA Society Chicago to a tour de force through the foundations of risk premia, the macroeconomic determinants of equity risk, and how the risk premium can me misused.

Damodaran’s talk was followed by a panel which included himself, Michele Gambera, co-head of Strategic Asset Allocation Modeling at UBS Asset Management, and Bryant Matthews, global director research at HOLT. The panel discussion was moderated by Patricia Halper, CFA, co-chief investment officer at Chicago Equity Partners.

Damodaran pointed out that while the risk-premium is referred to as one number, it contains several various risk factors, such as political and economic risks, information opacity, and liquidity risks. Despite the underlying complexity, a common way to derive the risk premium is from the average volatility of some historical period. This, Damodaran warns, is a dangerous approach. By using historical data you can derive any risk premium you want by using the time horizon of your choosing. When you look at historical averages, you are also searching for a number that nobody has ever experienced. And even if they did, you should not believe that history will simply repeat itself. And even if history did repeat itself, you are still estimating a number with large error margins. In the end, the exercise is just not useful.

Damodaran has done a lot of work determining equity risk premia for different countries and makes his data available on his homepage. His approach is to derive an implied risk premium based on consensus forecasts of earnings and adding country risk premia for different countries. He cautions that there is no pure national premium thanks to our integrated world. Much of S&P earnings, for instance, are derived from abroad, and this must be taken into account.

For a person who has devoted so much time to estimating risk premia, it may come as a surprise that Damodaran thinks people should spend less time on it. His approach is that once you observe the market-implied risk premium, you should use this in your valuation model and devote your attention to estimating cash-flows. Right now, too many people are wasting too much time on valuing companies through finding the perfect risk-premia when cash-flows are ultimately going to determine whether they will get valuations right. Academic finance is another culprit here, which spends too much research time on discount rates.

Ask yourself this, are you working on your model’s risk premia because that is where you have superior knowledge, or because it is your comfort zone?

Damodaran is also critical of the use of the price-to-earnings ratio to assess valuation, since it looks at earnings only for the current period. In the US market the ratio may look high, but the pictures very different for current implied risk premia. Since 2008, risk-free rates have come down while expected stock returns have remained roughly the same. This actually implies a higher risk premium.

 Michele Gambera shares Damodaran’s criticism of historically derived risk premia. He also pointed out that while the risk premium fluctuates a lot, we pretend in our models that it is constant. In effect, Gambera stressed, we are estimating a random-walk variable. A better approach for your valuations is to use a forward-looking covariance matrix with various factor loadings.

Should we therefore throw the historical data out the window? When asked the question, Bryant Matthews of HOLT pointed out that historical data are not all useless in a world where variables tend to mean-revert. But you may need to wait a long time for it to happen.

Is there a small-cap premium? Damodaran pointed out that if you estimate the historical premium since 1981, it is negative, which is clearly fictional. However, Matthews estimated a small cap premium of 0.6%, albeit with a standard error that makes it statistically zero. By slicing the equity market in other ways, he estimates that value stocks tend to have a 3.5% equity premium over growth stocks, while Fama and French’s quality stocks-factor enjoys a 2.1% premium over non-quality stocks.

Matthews has also calculated market implied risk premia for over 70 countries, and found it rising in the US from 0% in 2000 to 4% today. Such estimates, he pointed out, are often counterintuitive for clients. Surely, equities were riskier in 2000 when valuations were high. But precisely because valuations were so high, the implied risk premium, which was part of the discount rate, was low.

Can we make money by investing in high-risk premium stocks? After all, theory tells us returns are the reward for taking risk. Yet as Gambera pointed out, high-volatility stocks tend to be favored by investors in part as a way to leverage up according to the CAPM-models, as is done for instance in risk-parity models. At the same time, pointed out Matthews, low-volatility stocks are generally also high-quality stocks and therefore tend to have high return, despite their historically low risk.

Matthews argued that while profits are high for the US market as a whole, this really applies to only 100 companies. This concentration, he suggested, is due to lax regulations. Damodaran, however, suggested that antitrust measures cannot be relied on to change this fact. They may have been politically attractive in the time of Standard Oil, when that company’s dominated position allowed it to raise prices. The dominant firms of today are offering consumers very low prices. Break them apart and any politician will be met with discontent from voters.

Let us end with some historical perspective from Michele Gambera. Much of the early work on risk premia was made at a time of a very different market structure of industrialized countries. Steel and railroads ruled the day and many of today’s giants were not listed. The likes of Alphabet and Facebook pose new challenges in estimating risk premia. This suggests that now more than ever historical data will be misleading in estimating the risk premium, a modest number that means so much.

Present Like a Pro

In the third installment of a continuing series on communication, Scott Wentworth addressed members of CFA Society Chicago on how to make good business presentations on April 4th.  The capacity crowd of 90 in the Vault at 33 North LaSalle Street spoke to the popularity of the topic as well as the value of Wentworth’s previous two appearances before our society.  Wentworth founded Wentworth Financial Communications in 2015 to help financial businesses (especially investment managers) demonstrate their expertise through various forms of marketing content, including white papers, blogs, and newsletters. Prior to founding the company, he served as the head marketing writer at William Blair & Company. In his previous appearances with CFA Society Chicago (2017 and 2018), Wentworth addressed business writing, the primary focus of his company. This time, he spoke on oral communication, specifically how to make effective presentations.

Wentworth began by demonstrating (without announcing) several common presentation mistakes such as reading from a script, employing busy or confusing graphics, and relying on undependable technology. His point made, he quickly moved on to a very effective presentation embedding his recommendations within it. He pointed out that presenting is not the same as public speaking. A good presenter does not need to have a commanding presence or an abundance of charisma. Of greater importance is identifying and concentrating on one main idea, and then making a compelling case supporting it to the audience. Successful presenting requires skills that can be learned such as clarity, persuasion, concision, and good preparation.

Wentworth then went on to describe in detail his five tactics for a good presentation. First is identifying the goal of a presentation. He gave as examples motivating the audience to action, changing minds, correcting a misconception, or simply gathering information back from the audience. 

With the goal set, the second tactic is to analyze the audience. Is it hostile or supportive?  Uninterested or engaged? Uninformed or well-informed? This may be a difficult step if the presenter has limited information, but may be inferred from factors such as the type, purpose or setting of the presentation. It is important because it will direct the tone of the presentation.  To address a hostile audience, the presenter should emphasize areas of agreement first and seek out areas the audience would view as “win-win”. Whereas, with a supportive audience the presenter should reinforce their enthusiasm and provide an action plan or tools that lead to tangible benefits.

Wentworth described his third tactic as crafting your story arc. He admitted this is the most difficult aspect of a presentation because it is an art, not a science. It begins with identifying the one main idea he mentioned at the outset. This idea should be boiled down to as few words as possible and repeated throughout the presentation to drive it home.  In must be articulated early in the presentation to allow for this repetition, and also to protect against the risk of running out of time. Other features of the story arc include:

  • Using empathy to demonstrate that the presenter understands the audience’s situation and can help.
  • Focusing on the benefits offered rather than features (a common trap for investment managers who often focus on a product’s defining characteristics or performance).
  • Highlighting differentiating factors
  • Making things tangible.  Avoid abstract ideas, or if they’re necessary, convert them to a more tangible concept via examples or anecdotes.

The fourth tactic is creating effective visual aids. This can lead to another common error of presenters: considering the slide deck to be the presentation. Wentworth says it is not.  Rather, slides are a visual aid, just part of the presentation along with the equally-important delivery, the message or theme, and the interaction with the audience. He followed-up with a list of Do’s and Don’ts for slides.

Slides should

  • Reinforce the main idea,
  • Illustrate statistics or relationships,
  • Explain complex ideas, and
  • Keep the audience engaged. 

Slides should not

  • Outline the full presentation (they are just an aid),
  • Serve as a teleprompter, nor
  • Be distractive (too busy). 

As an aside, Wentworth recommended that the slides a presenter uses be pared down as much as possible with the bulk of the information conveyed by the presenter directly.  He recommended to having a more detailed deck as a “leave behind” for the audience.

The final recommended tactic is to practice with purpose for which Wentworth had several helpful hints:

  1. Do a dry run alone to learn the material and time the presentation
  2. Repeat with a reviewer (e.g., a co-presenter, team member, or even a spouse)
  3. Prepare for a failure of technology and have a plan B in case of a breakdown
  4. Don’t memorize lines. You’re likely to forget them which increases tension and nervousness.

Wentworth concluded his presentation, not by asking for questions, but rather asking the audience to provide examples of roadblocks or challenges they had faced in making presentations. Many offered up cases which proved to be good illustrations of how to apply the five tactics he had outlined. The discussion naturally led into a robust series of questions that extended for over half an hour. The level of audience engagement proved that Wentworth had both talked the talk, and walked the walk in demonstrating how to make a good presentation.

Past Wentworth Financial Communications Events: