As I crossed the finish line a few weeks ago at the Flagline 50k in Bend OR, I had mixed emotions due to my expectations of how I performed. Expectations of a running performance for me can be both personal and from what others expect out of you. I tend to focus on the personal and most of the time I have been quite hard on myself.I hate nothing more than to hear runners “sandbag” before and after a race. I’ve heard all the excuses imaginable, only to get my back side handed to me during the race by the same runner who considered himself unfit etc. However whether we realize it or not the sandbagging can sometimes be a human mechanism for quelling our own and other’s expectations. If the expectations become too great then it is human nature to diffuse the situation often through runners announcing publically our array of excuses.I’ve probably done this more than I realize or more than I care to acknowledge but I do try to keep my excuses to myself. If I am on the start line at a race, more times than not I’m ready to roll. I felt ready for the Flagline 50k and had fairly high expectations of how I would perform. Secretly I had a goal of breaking four hours, first male master or top three overall. However I did have two fears (excuses) in the back of my mind. The first concern was my ankle that I had sprained and the cause for a DNF at my last ultra. I had my suspect ankle taped and I wore a brace, still I worried. Secondly I knew this race was all above an elevation of 6200’and up to 7200’ so I was concerned some about running at a higher elevation.I finished just slightly below the mark on my goals. I had no issues with the ankle during the race but the higher elevation I felt hurt my time. Since I had set my own expectations to an all or nothing expected outcome, I unwillingly set my self up for failure. I grappled with my performance for the next few days. How much did the elevation affect my performance? It is hard to know but probably not all that much. There was nothing I could do about the altitude and I found myself using that as my excuse time and time again as people asked me how I performed. As I said I hate excuses and sandbagging but here I was consumed with seeking an excuse to help alleviate my own personal expectation and now what other people were possibly considering of my race performance.As the days have passed I’ve come to grips with my performance as acceptable. I chose this race mainly for the beautiful location in Bend, OR at Mount Bachelor and just to try something different in a new area. I wanted to approach this race in a more relaxed, low key mindset but as the days approached my competitive juices took over. My time goals were somewhat arbitrary as I’d never run the course and they were probably too rigid.In retrospect, what I should have done was stick to a three tiered goal approach that I most always use. I rank my race goals in order as A, B, and C. My “A” goal is my pie in the sky, all the planets lining up goal, down to goal “C”, which should still be a very acceptable outcome. Also having multiple goal levels has helped me relax more prior to a race. Setting goals is a great motivational tool as long as you are fair and don’t expect too much of yourself. By setting unattainable expectations and goals you run the risk of diminishing the outcome of your performance and thus the search for those post race excuses. I will soon enough be going back to my three tiered goal for my next race.
Sustainability-related disclosure rules proposed by EU supervisors have a focus on retail investors and are not yet appropriate for pension funds, which in some cases should be considered as end-investors rather than their members and beneficiaries, according to PensionsEurope.Responding to the supervisors’ joint consultation on so-called regulatory technical standards (RTS) for the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation (SFDR), the lobby group said the draft rules raised concerns because of a lack of flexibility that “does not always reflect market realities and would not fit the information needs of pension funds’ members and beneficiaries”.In many countries, it noted, members and beneficiaries did not have any investment choice and could be automatically or mandatorily enrolled.Where pension fund members and beneficiaries did not have an investment choice – Belgium, the Netherlands and most plans in Germany, for example – the pension fund itself should be considered the end-investor and the SFDR’s greenwashing objective was irrelevant “as ESG is never used as a selling point”, PensionsEurope said. The final environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure rules that the European supervisory authorities (ESAs) come up with needed to avoid “stifling IORPs with inappropriate and burdensome rules with very little added value in improving members’ and beneficiaries’ ESG awareness,” it argued.“We urge the ESAs to take into account [members’ and beneficiaries’] perspective on the disclosures, which differs significantly from that of retail clients proactively seeking to buy a responsible or sustainable financial product,” PensionsEurope said.On principal adverse impactsA key feature of the SFDR is the introduction of a requirement to make disclosures about “principal adverse impacts” (PAIs), with the ESAs having proposed mandatory reporting against 32 indicators.PensionsEurope said it welcomed the proportionality considerations adopted in the application of the PAI disclosure requirements, but that below the threshold of 500 employees, any due diligence pursued voluntarily should not imply mandatory disclosure against the full set of indicators.“Otherwise,” the association said, “financial market participants with less than 500 employees would be strongly disincentivised to do any due diligence, as it would imply immediately full reporting against the indicators.”For entities with more than 500 employees, the lobby group suggested that the ESAs allow financial market participants – a broad range of organisations covered by the SFDR – to prioritise the adverse impacts and select the relevant indicators based on their materiality.It noted that the SFDR did not provide a definition of adverse impact and questioned “filling in a central, but undefined, concept through a regulatory standard”.“The best effort approach to obtain data from companies does not reflect the operational realities of pension funds”Another issue raised by PensionsEurope is the often cited one of ESG data availability – the association said it is currently insufficient to enable compliance with the new disclosure requirements “with the level of precision required by the draft RTS”.The best effort approach to obtain data from companies “does not reflect the operational realities of pension funds”.The point was echoed by Pensioenfederatie, with the Dutch pension fund association saying that Article 7(2)a of the draft RTS implied that entities should first aim to obtain any missing data on the adverse impact indicators from investee companies.“If this interpretation of the proposed text does not correspond to the way the provision was intended, we still ask for a clarification as most other stakeholders seem to share this interpretation,” Pensioenfederatie said.‘Extremely tight’ timelineAnother issue of concern to both PensionsEurope and Pensioenfederatie – as well as other investor groups such as Efama, the European asset management association – is the timeline for implementation of the new rules.Both the pension bodies said they appreciated the ESAs’ highlighting to the European Commission the extremely tight implementation timeline, and urged the supervisors to “continue to put forward this message” as no action had yet been taken to mitigate the problem. In Pensioenfederatie’s case, it said it was urging for this despite acknowledging the limited role the ESAs could play in this regard.“We are very concerned that our members will not be able to achieve compliance with the SFDR within the timespan between the adoption of the RTS and the 11th of March 2021,” the Dutch group said.The ESAs have suggested to the Commission to revisit the application date of the SFDR, and, backing this, Efama has called for its postponement until at least 1 January 2022. It said this was still a challenging, yet manageable timeline, coherent with the application date for the requirements under the EU taxonomy regulation.PensionsEurope said the RTS are due to be finalised by the end of January 2021.Read moreEU sustainable finance: The promise of disclosuresNew EU sustainability reporting requirements for investors could drive companies to improve disclosures. But making the new standards useful for end-investors could still be a challengeLooking for IPE’s latest magazine? Read the digital edition here.
Exchange Club Park, located along the Intracoastal Waterway in north Pompano Beach, Florida, will be closed to the public during a maintenance dredging project that the City of Lighthouse Point is carrying out in some of its residential canals, according to the Point! Publishing latest announcement. The dredging project is just getting underway and is anticipated to take about three months to complete.The park will be used by Lighthouse Point as a temporary deposit site for the material dredged from the canals.According to Point! Publishing, the material will be transferred from the dredging barges to the upland property at the park for temporary storage until it dries out.Once the material dries out, it will weigh less and be cheaper to haul away by truck for permanent disposal.“Pompano Beach anticipates using the park property for a canal dredging project that it expects to begin in the next fiscal year,” Point! said.The dredging would take 6-8 months to complete. The city has a prioritized list of about 40 city canals that need to dredged.The canals and the quantity of material to be dredged will be contingent on available funding.
By Lonnie WheatleyDODGE CITY, Kan. – It all comes down to Saturday night at Dodge City Raceway Park.A full season of racing action atop the 3/8-mile clay oval in southwest Kansas culminates with the sixth annual Jerry Soderberg Memorial Championship event on Sept. 15.Saturday’s card that goes green at 7 p.m. marks the final round of championship chase action for each of the track’s five divisions including the Precise Racing Products DCRP Sprint Cars, IMCA Modifieds, IMCA SportMods, IMCA Sunoco Stock Cars and IMCA Sunoco Hobby Stocks. The Sprint Car portion of the program will pit the DCRP Sprint Cars versus the United Rebel Sprint Series (URSS).Soderberg was very instrumental in helping form the URSS in its beginning 13 years ago and this Memorial event in his honor is always a popular race for the traveling series. Past winners of the event include Zach Blurton in 2013, Taylor Velasquez in 2014 and 2015, Jake Bubak in 2016 and Velasquez again in 2017.Past Jerry Soderberg Memorial Championship Winners2017 – Taylor Velasquez (Sprint Cars), William Nusser (Modifieds), Brian Davidson (Sport Mods), Angel Munoz (Stock Cars), Duane Wahrman (Hobby Stocks).2016 – Jake Bubak (Sprint Cars), Cole Traugott (Modifieds), Jeff Kaup (SportMods), Michael Pepper (Stock Cars), David Berger (Hobby Stocks).2015 – Taylor Velasquez (Sprint Cars), Brendon Gemmill (Modifieds), Jamie French (Sport Mods), Angel Munoz (Stock Cars), Reagan Sellard (Hobby Stocks).2014 – Taylor Velasquez (Sprint Cars), Jesse Richter (Modifieds), Nate Ginest (Sport Mods), Ron Hartman (Stock Cars).2013 – Zach Blurton Sprint Cars), Ryan Heger (Modifieds), Josh Appel (SportMods), Ron Hartman (Stock Cars).General admission for the Soderberg Memorial is $20 with children 11 and under admitted free when accompanied by an adult.