According to reports, undefeated retired boxer Floyd Mayweather has entered right into a cooperation agreement with Black Spruce Management.

According to Mayweather, yes investing $402 million for a 1,000-unit inexpensive housing portfolio spanning over 60 buildings in Manhattan, in the guts of New York City. The deal was reportedly made with Josh Gotlib of Black Spruce Management. As of now, Black Spruce and Mayweather haven’t released any details or comments. However, media reported that the multifamily real estate deal is concentrated on Upper Manhattan and shall be one in every of the biggest transactions in the town this 12 months.

A portion of the portfolio closed on October 17, and the rest of the transaction is anticipated to shut in the fourth quarter or early first quarter of 2025.

In 2021, Black Spruce worked recapitalize 1,800-unit Article XI contract. They planned to perform this by selling interests in 97 buildings, that are also primarily positioned in Upper Manhattan and comprise six portfolios. The company planned to sell a 49.9 percent stake, which might value the deal at $700 million.

Money is flowing like water for Mayweather, because it was recently reported that the previous boxer had purchased 4 million-dollar luxury watches. Not to be outdone, when he heard that luxury watch designer Avi & Co was debuting a brand new watch collection, he was able to buy it. However, after seeing the 4 watches in the gathering, he decided to easily buy the complete set.

They cost $250,000 each, giving him a $1 million return. In doing so, he became the primary person to own all 4 watches from the Avi & Co Hue collection.

“It’s hard to choose one watch; they are all unique watches. I’m proud of Avi and I support him. He’s my friend and if I want to hang out with him, I can. You can’t do that with a Rolex or AP (Audemars Piguet) owner.”

social security, already below significant financial pressures, has a staggering $23 billion in unrecovered overpayments.

Between fiscal years 2015 and 2022, the Social Security Administration (SSA) made nearly $72 billion in improper payments, most of which were overpayments. This comes amid a looming financial crisis wherein trust funds are expected to be depleted by 2035, potentially resulting in a 25% reduction in advantages for thousands and thousands of Americans.

Although improper payments represent lower than 1% of total advantages paid during this era, $23 billion in uncollected overpayments pose a major problem for SSA, in accordance with the Office of Inspector General (OIG). These overpayments – often the results of errors or misreporting by beneficiaries – highlight the agency’s efforts to keep up the financial accuracy of its payments.

Since 2002, OIG marked inappropriate payments as a “major management challenge” and made dozens of recommendations for stopping and correcting them. However, despite repeated audits and advisories, a lot of these recommendations remain unimplemented, which has impaired SSA’s ability to recuperate funds and prevent future overpayments.

According to OIG audits, one in all the major causes of improper payments is SSA’s reliance on beneficiaries to self-report changes of their circumstances. resembling income or housing conditions that affect payment amounts. The lack of sufficient controls in SSA’s automated and manual processes further complicates matters. The OIG urged SSA to acquire more accurate data from external sources, resembling other federal agencies and financial institutions, to raised assess eligibility and payment amounts.

Despite these ongoing challenges, SSA has made some progress. In October 2023, the agency began a comprehensive review of its overpayment procedures and is developing latest systems to access third-party payroll data. This could reduce improper payments, especially for beneficiaries who work while receiving advantages.

However, efforts to implement a brand new debt management product – intended to deal with several OIG recommendations – were halted in fiscal 12 months 2024 as a result of lack of funding. This leaves many key issues unresolved, making it difficult to effectively recuperate overpayments.

“Improper payments have long been a challenge for SSA,” said Michelle L. Anderson, deputy inspector general for audit and acting inspector general. “While the Agency has taken action to address this challenge, it must do more.”

With Social Security’s financial future hanging within the balance, addressing the issue of improper payments is critical to this system’s solvency. Preventing and recovering overpayments won’t fully solve the crisis, however it is a critical step in ensuring that Social Security can proceed to offer a living for the thousands and thousands of Americans who depend on it.

When you are a manager, giving feedback can feel like walking a tightrope. Whether you are praising an worker’s achievements or correcting shortcomings, the way you communicate can have a serious impact on how your words are received and acted upon.

How business school professorsWe’ve done research on how to make the assessment process as painless as possible. We have found three basic strategies for providing feedback which can be each effective and constructive.

Using these strategies will show you how to improve your feedback process, making a more positive and productive work environment:

1. Keep your emotions out of it

Have you ever noticed that saying things like “I’m disappointed” or “I’m proud of you” can completely change the flow of a feedback conversation? This is because the language you employ – especially emotionally charged words – may change how employees interpret feedback.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, our research shows that using negative emotional language – e.g., “I’m disappointed” – can reduce worker motivation and energy. This happens because employees take their attention away from results and give attention to the way you, the manager, perceive them as an individual.

At the same time, using positive emotional language comparable to “I’m happy” can sometimes backfire. This is because it could actually make employees feel complacent.

The key takeaway is that using emotionally neutral language, especially when giving negative feedback, helps employees stay focused on their tasks without being misled by what the feedback says about them personally.

Instead of claiming, “I’m disappointed with our sales numbers,” try a more neutral approach, comparable to, “Sales numbers are below our goal. Let’s discuss some improvement strategies.”

By keeping control of the emotions in your language, you’ll be able to focus the conversation on results. This helps employees higher understand what they need to work on without the added emotional burden.

2. Let employees customize their experience

Not all employees want the same sort of feedback, and that is completely nice. Giving employees the ability to select the type and frequency of evaluations can increase productivity.

Employees who can influence how often they’re evaluated are more likely to use the process productively and effectively feel less micromanagedour research has shown.

Consider making a feedback menu where employees can select areas to evaluate, comparable to communication skills, leadership development, or project management. An additional strategy is to allow employees to set the frequency of feedback sessions – whether that be weekly check-ins or more comprehensive quarterly reviews.

When employees have an influence on the evaluation they receive, they’re more open to it, perceive it as more invaluable and are more willing to act on it.

3. Select the appropriate messenger

Who provides the feedback can be as essential as the information itself. Our research has shown this some employees respond higher to feedback from peers, while others respond higher when it comes from a manager.

Specifically, we found that folks with a greater sense of entitlement are higher at responding to feedback from a supervisor, whereas individuals with less empowerment are more responsive to peer feedback.

Therefore, it could be idea to use personality profiles to determine the best communicator to provide feedback. For example, consider situations in which feedback can reasonably be provided from a colleague and from whom, comparable to a peer mentor or team leader.

By matching the source of feedback to the content and context, you’ll be able to be sure that the feedback can have a deeper resonance and can be perceived as constructive, not critical.

Applying the rules to real life

Managers may find that using these three strategies may require adapting their current approach to feedback, but the advantages are price it. Here’s a fast example of how to apply these strategies:

Imagine you have got an worker, Mark, whose performance has recently dropped. You can start a conversation in which you express your opinions with a neutral statement, e.g. “Mark, I noticed that deadlines weren’t met in your recent projects. Let’s discuss why this might be happening.” This language will help Mark give attention to the issue without it being considered a private attack.

Then offer Mark the option of normal biweekly visits or monthly checkups to see what works best for him. Finally, if Mark has relationship with a team member who specializes in time management, consider organizing a peer feedback session where they’ll share suggestions and methods.

Result? Mark feels supported, not analyzed, and feedback is seen as a chance for growth, not a reprimand.

As researchers who’ve been studying management communication and feedback strategies for years, we all know that these approaches can change the way people interact with their teams. By providing feedback intentionally, managers can create an environment in which employees feel respected, valued, and motivated to succeed.