October 2010

Wall Street’s Latest Gold Rush? The Booming China Market

October 27, 2010

BEIJING/HONG KONG (Reuters, By Steve Eder and Denny Thomas ) – Morgan Stanley (MS.N) chief executive James Gorman wasn’t going to miss his chance. It didn’t matter that he was on holiday. Gorman dropped everything and flew to Beijing last April. He wanted to show up in person to make sure his firm got a piece of what was shaping up to be the biggest initial public offering in history. In Beijing, Gorman spent hours rehearsing with his team for a half-hour pitch to executives of Agricultural Bank of China (601288.SS)(1288.HK), whose IPO would eventually raise $22 billion. “For a half-hour bake-off, he came all that way,” Wei Christianson, Morgan Stanley’s China CEO, said in an interview last month from her office near Financial Street in Beijing. As he practiced, the Australian-born CEO debated with colleagues about whether the Chinese bankers would want to hear his stories about farming in the outback. Gorman was not the only top Wall Street executive looking to get in on the AgBank deal. JPMorgan (JPM.N) CEO Jamie Dimon and Deutsche Bank CEO (DBKGn.DE) Josef Ackermann also went to China to make their pitch, and in the end all three banks secured an underwriting assignment for the bank’s Hong Kong offering. For a while at least, with their eyes dead set on the AgBank pot of gold, global bankers could set aside concerns about the challenges they face in China, a market they are desperately trying to crack but where they are finding more setbacks than successes. Why they want in is no mystery. Economists at Goldman Sachs believe that mainland China’s market capitalization will rise to $41 trillion by 2030 from $5 trillion now. That would make China’s stock market the biggest in the world. U.S. market cap is expected to grow to $34 trillion from $14 trillion over that time. But with China, American financial powerhouses may have met their match. Here, government connections and family ties can trump decades of banking experience and western swagger. So for all their efforts — and kowtowing — this is likely to remain one tough market Wall Street firms. GOLD RUSH In Beijing, where the towering gray headquarters of the world’s largest banks — Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (601398.SS)(1398.HK), China Construction Bank (601939.SS) (0939.HK) and Bank of China (601988.SS) (3988.HK) — cast a long shadow, Wall Street banks are still on the outside looking in. The towers in and around Financial Street wouldn’t look out of place on Wall Street. But looks can be deceiving. “You can’t just come in here and act like this is New York and try to operate the same way you would in New York,” said Philip Partnow, who heads China M&A for UBS (UBS.N) (UBSN.VX). Global banks trying to jumpstart their China operations are tangled in a web of strict regulation, culture clashes and politics. They worry too that even the sweat equity they are putting into training their partners in the ways of western banking will be lost. Some wonder whether China’s long-term plan includes their foreign guests from Wall Street. “At some point, the Chinese want to get to the point where they don’t need the foreign investment banks,” said Michael Werner, a Hong Kong-based China banking analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. China’s domestic “A Share” IPO market is especially tightly controlled. Even though global banks are actively underwriting listings for Chinese firms on the Hong Kong exchange, they are being shut out of the mainland IPO market. The China IPO market has reached $56 billion so far in 2010, more than five times what it was a decade ago. Despite such torrid growth, major U.S. banks have moved down the underwriting rankings, while domestic banks have solidified their spots at the top. Global banking powers like Goldman Sachs (GS.N), Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have an investment banking presence in China, which connect Chinese companies, often state-owned entities, with foreign capital. The Chinese banks have not built up their international distribution networks yet, leaving the door open foreign banks to get a piece of the market. But what happens when China’s banks and its growing ranks of regional securities firms are able to shoulder the load? Some foreign bankers fear they will be sidelined, with years of investment lost, and invaluable know-how left in the hands of their Chinese partners. “Basically, it is a big technology transfer that is going on here — and then the Chinese shut the door,” said Gordon Chang, author of the book ‘The Coming Collapse of China’. “They’ve done this so many times.” CULTURE CLASH One day a decade ago, during China’s mid-autumn festival, CICC CEO Levin Zhu was the last one to leave the office. He was working late into the night in a smoke-filled room on the China Petroleum & Chemical Corp (Sinopec) (0386.HK) (600028.SS) IPO. By that time, Morgan Stanley’s influence on CICC had shrunk in part because Zhu had wrested control of the bank from the Wall Street firm, reducing it to a passive investor. It was a far cry from the more engaged role that Morgan Stanley had envisioned when helped to launch the joint venture. When Morgan Stanley began the JV, its majority partner, China Construction Bank, was purely a commercial bank and had virtually no investment banking experience. That’s what Morgan Stanley brought to the table. Morgan Stanley brought seasoned bankers, its brand, and an invaluable amount of know-how to the joint venture. The information would be critical to CICC getting off the ground. With CICC, Morgan Stanley found itself on the inside of a successful investment bank, but one that was fraught with culture clashes and internal warring between western bankers and their Chinese counterparts, according to people who worked in the joint venture. THE RIDDLE Levin Zhu, who was a riddle to some of his Morgan Stanley counterparts, personified the cultural differences that make or break joint ventures. Zhu is what is known in China as a “princeling,” the offspring of a powerful politician. The son of former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji, he studied meteorology before going into finance and eventually landing atop CICC. Some former Morgan Stanley executives remain perplexed by Zhu, who they say understood finance and investment banking, but worked odd late hours and appeared to rely too much on his father’s political ties. Zhu, with his political clout, succeeded in reducing Morgan Stanley to a passive investor for much of the past decade, removing the Wall Street bank from management decisions and giving complete control of the operation to the Chinese. Morgan Stanley’s interest in exiting CICC came to light as early as 2007, but the bank is still waiting for approval from regulators to sell its stake. Media reports have indicated that approval could come soon. The slow-moving process has delayed Morgan Stanley’s plans to apply for a license with a new partner because rules forbid the banks from having two joint ventures simultaneously. And China does not seem to be in a hurry to create another competitor. Despite the history, Morgan Stanley refuses to speak ill of its CICC endeavor. MANY RISKS In September, Reuters met with a number of executives and investment bankers from global banks, all of which are jockeying for position in the Chinese market. The executives offered a positive outlook for China and spoke with hope and ambition about building operations there. With China expected to emerge as the largest market in the world — it’s economy is growing more than 10 percent annually — bankers are careful not to say anything that could catch the attention of regulators and potentially hurt their access. “A lot of what these people say publicly, that China is going to be great, just cannot be true; there are too many risks,” said Victor Shih, who teaches political science at Northwestern University. Foreign banks are under pressure to appear bullish China because they are trying to sell Chinese investments to clients, he adds. But if China’s growth goes as expected, there is no doubt it will be a boon to financial intermediaries who stand to see billions of dollars in yearly revenues over the next two decades — making it all the more critical for Wall Street banks to become true players in the market. LONG-TERM PROSPECTS Executives from Goldman and UBS, two banks that are among the best-positioned in China, were upbeat about the long-term prospects. “I think people thoroughly understand that long-term is long-term,” said Mark Machin, co-head of Asia investment banking for Goldman Sachs, who has been in Asia for 16 years. “These businesses and relationships don’t come in a month or week, they take years. We are building for a very long time. Everybody understands that,” he said. UBS talks about how it has found success “swimming with the current” in China. “What are the government’s priorities in China and how can I align my activities with their goals?” UBS’s Partnow said, explaining how his firm has found success in moving with regulators. Even though some bankers privately share frustrations about the strict hand of Chinese regulators and the pace at which they move, publicly the executives measure their words when talking about the government. Robert Morrice, Barclays’ Asia-Pacific CEO, says he understands where the Chinese regulators are coming from. “I try to put myself in their position,” he said. “If I were them I would want to control international entrance to my marketplace because you have to have the right participants.” THE DANCE As banks salivate over the possibilities, there are some doubters, however. One of them is James Chanos, the hedge fund manager known for correctly predicting the demise of Enron. Since the start of 2010 he has been making the case that China is built on a real estate bubble that is likely to burst. “I don’t see this ending well,” Chanos said from his New York office. “The bulls think the Chinese authorities will slowly let air out of the bubble. History is not on their side.” The slowdown might be starting already. Property investment is set to grow 26.8 percent for all of 2010, slowing from a rise of 37.2 percent in the first seven months of the year, according to a report from a top China economic planner. Chanos does not speak Mandarin and he has never been to Beijing. But he knows numbers, and his predictions do not look good for Wall Street banks hoping to find gold in China over the long term. “China is not going to be a driver of their profitability,” he said. When Gordon Chang, the author, considers how banks are tripping over one another to get an edge in China, it conjures up memories of former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince’s infamous comment before the U.S. housing crisis: “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.” “When your competitors do something, you’ve got to do it as well,” said Chang. “But I think they’re all missing something.” Chang, a lawyer who worked in China and Hong Kong for two decades, also points to the overheated real estate market. He said he believes that foreign banks are already getting hints that China could be on a course for trouble. Goldman recently pared its stake in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China by $2.3 billion. Earlier, Bank of America pared down its interest in the China Construction Bank to raise $7.3 billion. “That’s not what you would do if you were truly bullish about it,” Chang said. (Writing by Steve Eder; Additional reporting by Michael Flaherty in Hong Kong and Kang Xize in Beijing; Editing by Jim Impoco and Ted Kerr) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Bailout Oversight Panel Slams Obama Administration Over Foreclosure Crisis

October 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — A key government panel keeping tabs on the bailout strongly criticized the Obama administration Wednesday for its apparent failure on a variety of housing-related fronts, from its ineffective foreclosure-prevention initiatives to its refusal to acknowledge the growing crisis sparked by widespread evidence that mortgage companies frequently take their customers’ homes via fraud. Faced with increasingly heated criticism from the Congressional Oversight Panel, the administration’s representative — the Treasury Department’s housing rescue chief, Phyllis Caldwell — hunkered down, refusing to answer basic questions. It was a familiar scene. As the housing market continues to flirt with the risk of falling into a double dip — prices are already heading downward, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency forecasts prices to return to their June 30, 2010 level in the fourth quarter of 2013 — the Obama administration continues to face assaults on its attempts to fix the crisis threatening Americans’ most valuable asset. Some independent experts, while critical overall, praise the administration for its role in spacing out the negative shocks from the record home repossessions taking place, lessening the chances of the economy suffering a fatal blow. Others say the administration’s efforts have simply prolonged the crisis and delayed the recovery. Either way, the consensus is that the administration hasn’t pursued the right policies to jumpstart the recovery. During Wednesday’s hearing, members of the Congressional Oversight Panel said Treasury’s foreclosure-prevention programs “failed to provide meaningful relief,” generated “false expectations,” and have been a “major disappointment.” COP is an independent, nonpartisan commission created by Congress. More than 20 months after President Barack Obama announced a plan to “enable as many as three to four million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure,” just 640,300 homeowners remain in the program. Nearly 729,000 struggling homeowners have been kicked out. “We are faced with a choice here,” said Damon Silvers, a member of the panel who also works as director of policy and special counsel at the AFL-CIO. “We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can’t do both.” The commissioners were just as critical when it came to assessing Treasury’s response to the growing crisis emanating from mortgage companies’ use of fraudulent paperwork to foreclose on homeowners. That consequences of that, though, may pale in comparison to the risk faced by the nation’s biggest banks when it comes to demands for them to buy back the faulty home mortgages that they bundled and sold to investors as securities. Estimates from Wall Street analysts range well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is part of a group of investors that sent a letter demanding Bank of America buy back some $47 billion in dodgy mortgages. The New York Fed owns the mortgage debt as a result of its 2008 bailout of Bear Stearns, the fallen global investment bank. The administration and financial regulators are conducting a review, though it’s unclear how comprehensive it is or how many people have been devoted to it. Administration officials say that thus far “there is no evidence of systemic risk.” Not taking that for an answer, Silvers bore into Caldwell. “I’m concerned about Treasury making representations categorically that you don’t see a systemic risk,” Silvers told Treasury’s chief homeownership officer. “And let me walk you through exactly why.” “That letter asks for $47 billion of mortgages — of mortgage- backed securities to be repurchased at par,” Silvers went on. “Do you know what those mortgages are currently carried at … the market value of those bonds today?” Caldwell declined to comment. Silvers continued: “OK, fine. Let me tell you what the Fed says they’re worth. The Fed tells us they’re worth 50 cents on the dollar. So if the Fed’s request to Bank of America is honored, right, Bank of America, assuming they are carrying these bonds, assuming when they buy them back they mark them to market, Bank of America will take a $23 billion loss. “The Federal Reserve further informs us that there is nothing particularly unique about that particular set of mortgage-backed securities — meaning they have not been chosen…because they’re particularly bad. They believe they are of a common quality with the rest of Bank of America’s underwritten mortgage-backed securities. There are $2 trillion [worth] of Bank of America’s underwritten mortgage-backed securities. “Five such deals — five such requests, if honored to Bank of America…will amount to more than the current market capitalization of Bank of America, which is $115 billion. “Now do you wish to retract your statement that there is no systemic risk in this situation? And the word is ‘risk’ — not ‘certainty’ — but ‘risk’? And I would urge you to do so, because these things can be embarrassing later.” Caldwell repeated her earlier claim that it was still early in the review. She added that Treasury is working “very closely” with “11 regulatory and federal agencies,” and that the administration is “watching this every day. “And that at this stage there appears to be no evidence of a systemic risk — but again it is early and it is something we are monitoring daily,” Caldwell said. Silvers questioned her again. “Let me suggest to you that the ‘it is still early’ is a perfectly acceptable position. … Is it your position that Bank of America honoring five of these things would not present a systemic risk? … Is Bank of America not systemically significant?” Caldwell responded that she and Treasury “didn’t say there was no risk. We said there didn’t appear to be evidence of a major systemic risk.” “I hope that … if the Treasury comes back to us and is discussing whether or not we need to deploy further public funds to rescue Bank of America, or such other institutions as might be affected by these events, that we get a similar kind of indifference to their fate after it’s too late,” Silvers shot back. “Because it strikes me that in light of the mathematics I’ve gone through with you, it is not a plausible position that there is no systemic risk here.” Silvers is a Democrat, but the panel’s concerns were bipartisan. Republican panelist J. Mark McWatters, a high-powered corporate tax lawyer and CPA, similarly peppered Caldwell with questions. After asking whether “Treasury [was] concerned that any of the large, too-big-to-fail financial institutions may experience a solvency or liquidity or capital crisis over the next few years” due to investor demands that it buy back faulty mortgages, and being told that Treasury had to find evidence of “systemic risk,” McWatters continued to press Caldwell. Citing the roughly $2.3 trillion of non-government-backed mortgage securities held by investors at the height of the housing bubble, McWatters said that “even if a relatively small percentage of those are put back and the banks have to buy them back at face [value], this could be a substantial problem. “Also, considering that this is not just a one-shot deal. I mean, when a mortgage is originated and put in a [mortgage-backed security], it may be multiplied through synthetic CDOs. So you may have the synthetic CDO problems also going back to the banks,” he added. CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations, are securities based on the value of other securities, like home mortgage bonds. Synthetic CDOs are essentially side bets on those securities. “So, I mean, it sounds like Treasury as of today has not done even a back-of-the-envelope sketch as to what the potential put-back rights could be to the TARP financial institutions,” McWatters said, referring to the risk big banks face from investors forcing them to buy back dicey mortgages. Caldwell repeated that Treasury is “monitoring this situation daily.” She declined to offer specifics, though at one point she did say that the administration was “monitoring litigation risk.” Despite the many questions, and various hypothetical scenarios, Caldwell declined to give any more details on the foreclosure paperwork crisis than had already been disclosed by other members of the administration. The panel was forced to make due with open questions and a lack of details on what, exactly, the administration was looking at, how hard it was looking, and whether they are considering or planning for worst-case scenarios. McWatters likely summed up the feelings of the entire panel when he said, “It’s a little bit frightening.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Video: Loomis Sayles’s Fuss Shuns `Overpriced’ U.S. Treasuries

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Dan Fuss, vice chairman at Loomis Sayles & Co., talks about Federal Reserve policy and the outlook for bonds. Treasury 10-year notes dropped for a sixth day, the longest streak in two years, as a report showing new-home sales rose more than forecast added to speculation a Federal Reserve program to boost the economy may be gradual. Fuss talks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Jones Says New MySpace Reboot Targets `Gen Y’ (Correct)

October 27, 2010

(Corrects on-screen graphic.) Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Michael Jones, president and chief executive officer of MySpace Inc., discusses the company’s new website design launched today. Jones speaks with Scarlet Fu and Ron Grover on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness.” Beverly Hills, California-based MySpace is owned by News Corp. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Everett Sizemore: States Struggle to Deal With New Gambling Loophole

October 27, 2010

A new form of gambling that combines online betting with brick-n-mortar casinos has been sweeping the nation, and states are struggling to keep up with the legal implications of this hybrid. Known as “internet sweepstakes cafes,” these establishments have found a loophole in anti-gambling laws by charging customers access fees (via pre-paid cards or by-the-minute) for internet access, which they use to play casino-style games online. The cafes seem to be popping up in economically depressed communities beside strip-mall pawn shops and check-cashing locations. The customers aren’t “technically” being charged to gamble, so the argument is that internet sweepstakes cafes aren’t breaking any laws. However, that has not stopped law enforcement and government officials in several states — including Florida , North Carolina , Ohio and Virginia — from trying to shut them down. Sweepstakes as a form of marketing have been around for as long as coupons and give-aways , but they have typically focused on getting your contact details so the company sponsoring it could put you on a mailing list. This new trend, however, is more similar to an online casino than Publisher’s Clearninghouse.

Read the full article →

Boris Briskin, Texas Rangers Fan, Quits Job To Watch Playoffs (VIDEO)

October 27, 2010

The Texas Rangers have reached their first World Series in franchise history and one fan has done everything he could do to see it, even if that meant quitting his job . Boris Briskin, a longtime Rangers fan, quit his job at a law firm in Los Angeles to go see his team make it to the World Series, according to Fox 4 News . “If I wasn’t here right now I would definitely be at work. And if the Rangers weren’t in the playoffs I would not be in Dallas right now,” he said. “It’s the Rangers. I’ve loved the Rangers for so long. They haven’t been to the playoffs since ’99. They’ve gone through so much since then. I really couldn’t miss this.” Briskin also said he is confident he will find another job. Scroll down to watch the video. WATCH: (Via Big League Stew )

Read the full article →

Video: Stocks Decline as Investors Tone Down Fed Expectations

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Courtney Donohoe reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks tumbled, snapping a five-day gain for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, as investors speculated that the Federal Reserve’s efforts to shore up the economy will be gradual. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

ProPublica: Treasury’s Incredible Shrinking Mortgage Mod Program

October 27, 2010

By Karen Weise , ProPublica . The U.S. government’s effort to help struggling homeowners is approaching a standstill, and the number of homeowners in ongoing mortgage modifications could start shrinking in several months if current trends continue, according to a ProPublica analysis of Treasury Department data. A year and a half into the program, the number of homeowners defaulting on their modified loans has been fast approaching the number of new modifications. In September, for example, banks modified almost 28,000 loans, but nearly 10,000 homeowners fell out of the program because they defaulted on their modified payments. Taken together, the programs’ growth has slowed by almost a quarter each month since May. The administration launched its foreclosure-relief effort last spring, looking to help 3 to 4 million homeowners by modifying their mortgages to have affordable monthly payments. Only 467,000 homeowners are in modifications that are still ongoing. Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University, said the problem isn’t the rate at which homeowners are redefaulting, which is low compared to other modifications, but rather the shrinking number of new modifications given out by banks. “We need to be modifying 10 times as many a month,” he told us. Across the country, over 5 million mortgages are more than 60 days overdue or in foreclosure, according to Lender Processing Services. Banks have had a poor record of modifying mortgages under the government program. (Check out our graphical breakdown of each bank’s performance.) Homeowners report Kafka-esque experiences of lost paperwork , miscommunication and dashed hopes in trying to get help preventing foreclosures. We’ve recently chronicled homeowner experiences in a series of profiles and a questionnaire . Investors who own mortgages are dismayed as well. The Treasury Department has yet to penalize a single mortgage servicer since the program launched last spring. “You start with a program that’s not well designed and a lack of will to enforce the program, and this is what you’re getting,” says White. The pipeline for permanent modifications also continues to dwindle. There are now fewer than 175,000 active trial modifications, down from almost 260,000 in July. Nearly half of the active trials are at least six months old. We contacted Treasury to ask about the slowing of the program, and they haven’t responded yet. We’ll update this post when we hear back. Two mortgage servicers, Bank of America and Aurora, have seen their numbers of active permanent modifications decrease in the past month. Bank of America’s dropped by about a thousand modifications, and Aurora’s fell by over 2,500 modifications. In a press release , Bank of America said that the drop came from a combination of defaulted modifications, servicing transfers and repaid mortgages. Only 428 mortgages have been repaid to the more than 100 mortgage servicers participating in the federal program. Aurora did not respond to ProPublica’s request to comment. Update: Treasury said it is working to reach as many eligible homeowners as it can and has expanded alternative options for borrowers that do not qualify for the modification program. ProPublica is America’s largest investigative newsroom. Sign up for our daily email here .

Read the full article →

Video: Hirshberg Says Oikos Is Stonyfield’s `Growth Rocketship’

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Gary Hirshberg, chief executive officer of Stonyfield Farm Inc., talks about his background, the company’s social mission and the yogurt market. Hirshberg talks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Correction Re: Marathon Oil Corporation Board of Directors Announcement

October 27, 2010

HOUSTON, TX–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) – Marathon Oil Corporation ( NYSE : MRO ) announced today that Pierre R. Brondeau has been elected to the Company’s board of directors. The release issued earlier today incorrectly stated the effective date. The correct effective date is Jan. 1, 2011.

Read the full article →

Jeff Sweat: Why Your Social Media Campaign Is Not the Next Old Spice Guy

October 27, 2010

Just watching Grover say “I’m on a horse. Cow.” in the pitch-perfect “Smell Like a Monster,” took me back to this summer’s Old Spice Guy social media campaign, and all the advice that followed to help marketers crack the Old Spice secret formula. No doubt there are people using that advice right now to recreate that famous monocle smile. But it takes more than a checklist to create a viral hit. Reverse-engineering the Old Spice Guy is just going to make a lot of things that smell like the Old Spice Guy — but aren’t. The advertising world obsesses about what makes things go viral, so when a true viral hit like Old Spice Guy happens, everyone’s going to try to deconstruct it. So from this campaign we got lessons for brands, lessons for public speakers, and just plain lessons . Luckily for us at Yahoo!, we have scientists to do the obsessing for us. A Yahoo! Labs research team analyzed millions of Tweets to find out what makes something a success. This study only looked at Twitter, but most of its findings translate to other channels, too. Their conclusion? The tweets that were retweeted endlessly looked an awful lot like those that weren’t. And 99.9% of tweets went absolutely nowhere. The only two factors that predicted success were the number of followers, and whether or not the person tweeted it had had a viral hit before. Nothing else — whether it was funny or not, subject matter, timeliness, media format — matters. Well, scratch that. It’s tough to imagine something going viral if it’s not clever. Old Spice Guy wouldn’t have been a hit if he just sat around telling people how to smell like a man. You have to have all the basics of “virality” down. But as Yahoo! research scientist Duncan Watts says, “That’s not a recipe for success — it’s a recipe for probability for success.” If no one actually decides to pass your content along, it’s not viral. It’s just a really nice portfolio piece. Three rules for viral success What? Didn’t I basically just say the rules don’t matter? Well, Watts does offer up some rules. They just don’t work the way you’d think they work. You can’t make viral happen: The first thing you need to do, Watts says, is accept the fact that you can’t control whether or not something goes viral. If that sounds like the Serenity Prayer from a 12-step program, you’re not too far off. Consider this a 3-step program for social media 12-steppers. You can create a great campaign, but you can’t make it a hit. This, by the way, is a great point to make to your boss. Get the recipe right: You have to create the kind of content that people want to pass along, so it needs to combine things like humor, interactivity and buttons that let you share. Usually, it can’t talk about the brand head on. (Which is a rule Old Spice Guy seems to have broken. Or did he? Discuss!) One of the things that Old Spice Guy did right is tap into the networks with large followings. Since that’s one of the few factors that Watts’ team found does work, doing that for your content should help it spread. The bigger your soapbox, the more likely people will be able to hear you. Try lots of stuff: You don’t know which of your ideas is going to take off, so you have to try a lot of them. Remember Elf Yourself, the viral hit from OfficeMax? It’s easy to look back at it now and see why it’s a hit. Because… everyone loves tiny little feet, right? But as AdWeek’s Brian Morrissey said in a recent presentation, that wasn’t the case when it was built. OfficeMax and its advertising agency partners made 24 different sites, many of them duds. Morrissey emailed Daniel Stein of EVB, one of the agencies that created it, who said that he was surprised that something like “Reindeer Arm Wrestling” wasn’t the one that made it big. “What it shows is that brands need a portfolio approach when looking to embed in digital culture,” Morrissey said. “There will be duds, without a doubt, and it’s time brands get OK with that.” By making a lot of good campaigns, OfficeMax increased the odds that one of them would break through. “You want to create a strategy where you don’t have to be right,” Watts says. He compares this to card-counting in Vegas. When you’re counting cards, you’re not trying to win every hand. You’re just trying to increase the odds of winning more hands. I should be clear — I think you should listen to lessons from the Old Spice Guy. Not because they’re going to give you a hit, but because they’re good things for your brand. And possibly because the man has one helluva silverfish hand catch . For more from Jeff, visit the Yahoo! Advertising Blog or follow @YahooAdBuzz .

Read the full article →

Video: Maviglio Says California Campaign `Shattering’ Records

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Steven Maviglio, publisher of the California Majority Report, talks with Bloomberg’s Market Crumpton about campaign advertising in the California gubernatorial contest between Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Phil Trupp: Seven Tips for Investors to Avoid Scams

October 27, 2010

I have been inundated by questions from investors who read my column after viewing the gut-wrenching movie, Inside Job . Their main concern: avoiding scams. The Dow has gained some 6,000 points since the bottom in 2008 — up 7.1 percent this year — encouraging a more positive mood. But many investors remain on the sidelines, shaken, rattled and rolled by the multi-trillion dollar plunge two years ago. My best selling book, Ruthless: How Enraged Investors Reclaimed Their Investments and Beat Wall Street , gives investors insight to one of the biggest money market scams in history. Our team of “economic commandos” reclaimed $200 billion and are clawing back $136 billion still frozen by banks and brokerages such as Oppenheimer & Company, Raymond James, TD Ameritrade, Pimco, Blackrock, and Charles Schwab, among others. These weasels claim they, not their clients, are victims of a money fund sold as completely safe, liquid, better than Treasury bonds — the next best thing to being in heaven. Yet the fund turned out to be one of the most deceptive ploys ever invented by Wall Street. It was — and remains — a financial wrecking ball that continues to decimate lives, charities and churches, municipal projects; it has savaged the jobs market and forced the shuttering of hospital wings, museums, and a host of other cultural and social entities. Not long ago, I received a phone call from a man who spent his life building a business. He has been reduced to living in a tent! Count one for the scammers. So to all investors who are righteously furious and gun shy, I offer the following tips on how to avoid being conned by your broker: 1. Your broker calls to sell a hot new financial product: Don’t jump in with an enthusiastic, “Okay! Count me in!” Do investigate. Go online. Use “Yahoo Finance” or other reputable sites to check out the product. Get back to your broker with hard questions. Test the broker’s actual knowledge of the product. Follow this “hot new item” online for at least a week before making a decision. One of the biggest mistakes investors make is to trust but not verify. When it comes to financial services and Wall Street, trust no one. 2. You are told in advance about a new company coming into the market. These are usually “Initial Public Offerings,” (IPO). Your broker invites you to buy in ahead of the offering, the incentive being you don’t have to pay a commission. Don’t think you’re saving big bucks avoiding a commission. This is a typical ploy to “make a market” in the IPO. Your broker has already made money by running the offering. IPO prices often drop within 24-48 hours after they’ve hit the market. Do check the stock after it’s up and running. Watch price movements for at least five days. Remember: No one does you a “favor” by selling you stock. The broker makes his numbers and you walk away with the risk. 3. You get a hot tip from a friend about the next “Big Thing.” Don’t buy it. If your friend knows about a new stock, most of the profit has already been pocketed by insiders. Do exercise skepticism. That hot new item may be a total scam or part of a bubble. Watch price fluctuations. Caution is your friend. If the product appears for real, buy little bites at a time. Incremental buying is a way to test profit and limit downside. 4. Your broker calls pushing a complex “structured” product. Don’t fall for the hype. Nine times out of 10 that’s exactly what you’re hearing. Do remember: If it’s “structured” it’s a derivative — junk! 5. Your broker has “special knowledge” about a product and you’re being let in on it. Don’t bite. Selling insider knowledge is against the law. Do call the bluff and consider switching brokers. 6. The market is on a tear and you’re feeling bullet-proof. Don’t let greed overrule common sense. You are never bullet-proof. Do ask yourself: “How much do I stand to lose?” This is question number one. Your quest for profit is an aphrodisiac. Your chances of losing are highest at this point of passionate certainty. 7. A broker promises consistent high returns. “This baby never loses money,” is the typical cliché. Don’t fall for it. Do remember Bernie Madoff. He never lost a dime — until he lost it all! Keep in mind an old Wall Street saying: “Bulls make money, bears make money — pigs get slaughtered!”

Read the full article →

Peggy McColl: Are You Marketing From a Place of Integrity?

October 27, 2010

Let me set the scene for you. It’s the beginning of spring and you have decided it’s time to seek out the support of a professional to help you with your weight loss goals and get ready for shorts season. You go to the gym for your first appointment with your personal trainer and there he is. One hundred pounds overweight and laboring for breath as he reaches the top of the stairs to greet you. Your heart sinks. You were putting your faith in someone to show you the way and it looks like he has not been able to find it on his own. Sounds a little far-fetched? Perhaps in person it is, but this type of disconnect happens behind the safe curtain of the internet all of the time. I have had a few of these experiences myself over the years and you probably have also. I have known authors to write books about how to get rich, yet they had no money. They planned to get rich by teaching others how to do it. Odd, isn’t it? There are also a lot of social media “experts” teaching people how to use social media for profits, but where are their actual profits, how are they making money from it, besides teaching it to others? Hmm? Ever meet someone who appeared completely disorganized, always full of drama and living in reactive mode? Were you ever shocked to find out he/she was a life coach? Then there are the folks who write about how to have a happy marriage and they have been divorced several times. In this case maybe they are telling you what not to do? Perhaps they should put it into practice before they deem themselves the teacher. I even had a client who signed up for one of my wealth programs and agreed to pay the investment over three payments. After being reminded that her second and third payments were overdue she came up with a proposition for me. If I helped to promote her own product about getting rich, the money I made by being her affiliate would pay me for my services. Did I lose you there for a minute? I am not surprised. I was confused and shocked when she suggested it to me. Now I am not suggesting that everyone online is a phony. What I am strongly recommending is that if you are going to offer anything, and I mean anything online, you need to do so from a place of total integrity . Your brand, your reputation, and your success depend upon being authentic. That is the only way to create raving fans. You don’t want clients that are happy you want clients that are raving about you. By being authentic it causes other people to talk about you. They are so impressed that they can’t wait to tell their friends and colleagues about you or your business. When your curtain is pulled back, what will your clients see? If you are not being authentic you are not building a business on a solid foundation. People will find out about you, one way or another. The online you should be a mirror image of the real you . Have you found that success follows authenticity? Do you have a raving fan story? Please share them in the comments section below.

Read the full article →

Tim Ryan: Regulators Must Get Rules of the Road Right

October 27, 2010

After President Obama signed financial regulatory reform in law, most Americans probably believe financial reform is complete — that the work is done. In reality, the reform process is just getting started. Over a dozen federal regulators must now begin a lengthy rulemaking and implementation process, requiring over 250 new rules to be studied and written. This is an unprecedented undertaking the results of which will impact nearly every American. Americans rely on financial services to help meet their needs: for retirement, education, homeownership and indeed every aspect of their lives. The over $145 trillion in financial assets held in the U.S. will be impacted by these rules, nearly a quarter of which are held in the personal sector. An estimated 34 percent of Americans’ total assets are in financial assets, most of which are in retirement accounts, mutual funds, stocks and bonds. The financial services industry raised nearly $1.6 trillion in equity and debt capital for businesses last year and a further $475 billion for state and local governments and projects. Nearly six percent of U.S. gross domestic product is generated by the financial services industry, which employs 7.6 million people nationwide. As the former Director of both the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Resolution Trust Corporation during the savings and loan crisis and its subsequent clean up, I know firsthand how important the next 18 to 24 months will be to American businesses and families. While no financial reform legislation in recent history compares in terms of scope and complexity, important lessons can be learned from the past. Successful rulemaking is not an isolated process. It is transparent and bipartisan. To craft the best rules possible, regulators should take into account different perspectives from financial industry experts including those from market participants, the legal community, academia, think tanks and consumer advocacy and industry groups. In the end, after reviewing these comments, regulators must reconcile these varied viewpoints to reach a common goal: to agree on a pragmatic set of rules that regulate the financial service industry, prevent future crises and create a strong economy that fosters healthy competition, job creation and growth in our communities. Federal regulatory agencies and their staffs will be faced with the daunting task of sifting through hundreds if not thousands of comment letters from a wide array of stakeholders and deciding which ones are the most important and substantive to consider. Their critical role goes beyond interpreting each part of the legislation and analyzing the technical merits of each comment, but also understanding how the financial rules will impact American businesses, individual investors and families. Will the new rules ensure that the costs of credit remain accessible for businesses and individuals to meet their financing needs? What is the impact of the final rules on companies’ competitiveness when they are tapping the global capital markets? Will the rule raise the price of basic goods and services? Too much is at stake for our financial system and America’s fragile economy not to ensure these final regulations are written the right way. Over the next two years, regulators will be reviewing and writing rules that range from increasing oversight of complex financial instruments such as derivatives to enhancing protections for individual investors and consumers. Then, they will need to enforce the new regulations. The rulemaking process is long and can be complex, but it is also the most open and democratic way of ensuring that the voices of key stakeholders are heard. We in the financial series industry, along with other stakeholders, remain committed to being a thoughtful contributor to this open process. We need to get these regulations right. And, we should never forget the painful crisis and economic recession that made financial reform necessary. Tim Ryan is president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), a leading securities industry trade group representing securities firms, banks, and asset management companies in the U.S. and Hong Kong.

Read the full article →

Robert Naiman: Remembering Nestor Kirchner, South American Hero Who Defied the IMF

October 27, 2010

The past president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, has died unexpectedly of a heart attack. U.S. media aren’t likely to give us much coverage indicating what Kirchner meant to many people in South America. This is a pretty safe bet, in part because to understand what Kirchner meant, you have to understand Kirchner’s role in a story that the U.S. media have never told properly: how, in the last 15 years, South America has been breaking free of Washington-prescribed economic and security policies. Since the US media never told this story, they’d be hard put to explain Kirchner’s role in it. The Christian Science Monitor runs an AP story that gives a little taste of what lies underneath, ” Nestor Kirchner remembered as Latin American statesman “: The leader of the human rights group Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, Estela de Carlotto, said Kirchner “gave his life for his country.” “Our country needed this man so much. He was indispensable,” she told radio Continental. Kirchner served as president from 2003-2007, bringing Argentina out of severe economic crisis and encouraging judicial changes that set in motion dozens of human rights trials involving hundreds of dictatorship-era figures who had previously benefited from an amnesty. As secretary general of the Union of South American Republics, or Unasur, Kirchner mediated one of the many recent disputes between Venezuela and Colombia. Both countries’ leaders mourned his loss on Wednesday. It’s true, as AP says, that Kirchner brought Argentina out of severe economic crisis, and that would be enough for many Argentines to remember him fondly. But part of how he did that was defying Washington and the International Monetary Fund, putting the need to revive Argentina’s domestic economy ahead of the demands of foreign creditors. And that’s why you shouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. financial press, for example, has a slightly different take on things. Oliver Stone’s recent documentary ” South of the Border ,” in which he interviews several South American leaders, has an extended interview with Kirchner, during which he relates that former President Bush told him that the best way to grow the U.S. economy was by waging war: South of the Border has just been released on DVD this week. If you want to see former President Kirchner as many South Americans see him, and as you are unlikely to see him in the U.S. media, you can get the DVD here .

Read the full article →

The Scrum Alliance Announces New Board Chairman

October 27, 2010

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) – The Scrum Alliance has announced the appointment of Mike Cohn as the Chairman of the Board, effective immediately.

Read the full article →

Andy Stefanovich: In Business or Travel, Recombobulation’s the Ticket

October 27, 2010

Milwaukee’s Mitchell Airport has the right idea with its “recombobulation area.” It’s a cool nod to the challenges of travel these days, from shoe removal to security wands to frantic dashes to distant gates in search of your next connection. For those who haven’t traveled through Mitchell Airport, they’ve named the area on the gate side of security the “recombobulation area.” It’s where you put your shoes and belt back on, repack the laptop and maybe regain a little dignity. It’s more than just the travel experience that leads to the need for a recombobulation space to recover from discombobulating occurrences. But travel is a good metaphor for today’s business life, where boundaries and beliefs are continually deconstructing and reconstructing. It’s a path that’s generally familiar, yet marked by a variety of unknown detours and obstacles. The world of known uncertainties is what the recombobulation area is all about. Sometimes, in travel, in business, in life, you just need to reset yourself. Consider three ways to recombobulate to better deal with the known uncertainties of today’s business times and re-spark your creative edge while you’re at it. Breathe Fresh Air . Fresh air is a rare commodity when you’re traveling. You move from your car to the station or airport and from there to the plane or train. You arrive at your destination, grab another cab and are deposited at the hotel. How much fresh air do you breathe during your travels? When you’re limited to breathing artificial, recirculated air, you’re limiting your exposure to new and different environments and experiences that will help you maintain your creative edge. For the 33 Chilean miners trapped 2,300 feet below ground, it’s a literal issue, leading the Chilean government to look outside the mining industry for solutions. The source of fresh thinking? NASA, whose considerable experience dealing with humans in the isolation and tedium of space is hoped to yield direct benefits here. Own the Process . It’s all too easy when traveling to keep your head down and hope for the best as you surrender to the process. You hope the guy in front of you in the security line knows what he’s doing. You hope your flight departs on time. You hope you make your connection. You hope your luggage arrives. When you own the process, you drive the experience. That’s how McDonald’s restaurants sees things. It has forged ahead with innovations like its expanded beverage offerings during the down economy, and healthy snack wraps as eating habits shift more healthy. Meanwhile, competitor Burger King has hunkered down and merely competed on value, leading to recent struggles. Raise Expectations (Yours and Everyone Else’s) . It’s hard not to fall into the trap of expecting the worst when traveling. “Sure, the flight’s on time. But we’ll probably sit for an hour on the tarmac before we de-plane.” And you’re pleasantly surprised if your low expectations are surpassed. But when you limit expectations to a very low bar, you’re limiting your ability to think big and create big. Consider whoever had any expectations of the Pop-Tart beyond a breakfast food? Kellogg and a group of experiential marketers, that’s who. They’ve re-set everyone else’s expectations with Pop-Tarts World on Times Square, a store dedicated to the delicious treat where you can enjoy Pop-Tarts “sushi,” video games, create your own Pop-Tarts delicacy and more. Recombobulation. It’s an idea whose time has come. Determine how and where you can reset to manage your own known uncertainties. You’ll unleash your inner creative in the process.

Read the full article →

Notice and Access: Pierre R. Brondeau Elected to Marathon Oil Corporation Board of Directors

October 27, 2010

HOUSTON, TX–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) –  Marathon Oil Corporation ( NYSE : MRO ) announced today that Pierre R. Brondeau has been elected to the Company’s board of directors, effective Jan. 1, 2010.

Read the full article →

Jerry Chautin: Starting a Business Begins With Exit Planning and a Buy-Sell Agreement

October 27, 2010

Charlie Spence’s advice to prospective small-business owners is to visualize your exit before you start. But even if you are already in business, it is not too late plan your exit. Spence is a financial adviser with Edward Jones Investments in Murphy, N. C. and I caught up with him at a workshop in this small, Western, North Carolina, Appalachian Mountain town. “At some point, undoubtedly you will exit (your business),” he says. “And that time could be rather soon for unexpected reasons, in the distant future, or sometime in between.” But unexpected occurrences can also happen to your business partner and you need to be prepared. “Two ways business plans for joint owners can become derailed is by either the death or disability of a partner,” Spence says. “The transition after a death can be made much easier with a buy-sell agreement .” My brother-in-law had a buy-sell agreement when he unexpectedly died leaving behind a wife and five children. His business partner was also left behind to fend for himself. A buy-sell agreement is a critical first step in exit planning. It should be one of the first requirements when starting a small business with multiple owners. Without one, my brother-in-law’s wife would have inherited his half of the business. In that instance, she could have taken his place in the company, whether or not his partner was pleased with that arrangement. Alternatively, she could have sold her inherited portion to an unqualified stranger with the chance of destabilizing the company. Instead, the buy-sell agreement mandated the purchase of life insurance to cover both partners. Their spouses were the beneficiaries and the tax-deductible premiums were paid by the business. So when my brother-in-law passed away, his wife got the insurance benefit. It turn, she was required to sell her inherited interest in the company to the surviving business partner for the amount of the insurance proceeds. Disability insurance works in a similar fashion if a business partner becomes disabled. In that event, the insurance pays off so that the disabled partner continues to have income. It protects his or her family from experiencing financial hardship during that time. “In the case of a partner’s disability, disability insurance would help replace income and protect the family of the disabled from experiencing financial hardship during that time,” Spence says. Additionally, disability of a partner or key salesperson can adversely affect the revenues of a small business. To protect the company’s cash flow, insurance policies can name the business as the beneficiary so that the income stream continues. But exit planning is also for business owners who are in good health and envision a comfortable life in retirement. More specifically, it is designed to help business owners save and invest their earnings while deferring income tax payments until they retire. “One day we all hope to retire and the earlier we plan for that day the more likely it will take shape as we hope,” Spence says. Exit planning is “to protect themselves, as much as possible, from taxes and inflation, and to build a retirement nest egg.” Retirement plans also offer benefits to the employees. It helps companies attract and retain them. Yet, “workers in small firms with fewer than 100 employees are much less likely than larger businesses to have a retirement plan available to them,” according to a study by the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy . “Nearly 72 percent of workers in small companies have no retirement plan available.” The study says that about 58 million workers do not have access to any type of retirement plan through their place of work. But even when a company-sponsored retirement plan is offered, “20 million workers do not participate.” According to SBA’s Susan Walthall, the study is to ensure business owners and their employees “plan and save adequately for their retirement.” The study blames the cost of setting up and running a retirement plan as reason that many small businesses do not offer them. Importantly, however, the cost varies with the complexity of the plan that you choose. And some simple plans are cost effective. To help you structure the best retirement plan for your circumstances, a financial adviser or your accountant can help. Additionally, an attorney who specializes in pension plans may be required to set it up and keep it current. For more complicated plans, an actuary will be needed. To estimate how much you need to save for a comfortable retirement, check out MSN’s retirement calculator online. Jerry Chautin is a volunteer SCORE business counselor, business columnist and SBA’s 2006 national ” Journalist of the Year ” award winner. He is a former entrepreneur, commercial mortgage banker, commercial real estate dealmaker and business lender. You can follow him at www.Twitter.com/JerryChautin

Read the full article →

Henry Paulson: Lehman Brothers Had To Fail

October 27, 2010

The government let Lehman Brothers fail during the financial crisis because there was no other choice, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday.

Read the full article →

AIB – Appointment of new Chairman

October 27, 2010

DUBLIN , IRELAND–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) – Allied Irish Banks, p.l.c. (“AIB”) ( NYSE : AIB ) announces the appointment of Mr. David Hodgkinson as Director and interim Executive Chairman, subject to regulatory approval. Mr. Hodgkinson will lead the Group through this difficult period and manage the process for the appointment of a Group Chief Executive.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Winning The Race To The Bottom

October 27, 2010

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture I am a Fellow with CAF. Visit the “I’m Voting For…” campaign Conservative policies have propelled us into a global raced to the bottom. Conservatives can take pride: we’re winning! “Free trade” — moving factories across borders to evade the protections of democracy that generations of Americans fought for — pits exploited workers with few rights and no means of improving their condition against Americans who once had environmental and wage protections. But ideas like protecting the gains of democracy are out of favor. That is labeled “protectionism” and is thought for some treason to be a bad thing. Conservatives were able to break the unions and wages for working people have stagnated, which the amount going to the top few has soared. Here is the future of American wages: From today’s Washington Post: In its biggest foreign market, BMW gets skilled workers for less , Among the applicants: a former manager of a major distribution center for Target; a consultant who oversaw construction projects in four Western states; a supervisor at a plastics recycling firm. Some held college degrees and resumes in other fields where they made more money. But they’re all in the factory now making $15 an hour – about half of what the typical German autoworker makes. . . . the price of having a more globally competitive workforce means more in the United States could fall well short of the middle-class living standards that manufacturing workers once could expect. Wages adjusted for inflation have declined for these workers since 2003. That’s right, German workers are now paid almost twice what American’s can make. (And they get health care and an average of 35 paid vacation days, we get 13.) Tea Party Wants To End Minimum Wage The Tea Party has its sights set on the minimum wage . They say it is ” unconstitutional ” and want it ” abolished .” Your Wages Are Next If you still have a job, your wages are next. You can bet that executives in every company are wondering why they are paying their employees so much when there are so many hungry, unemployed people out there looking for work. Every dollar they can save on paying you goes into their pockets. Isaiah Poole pointed out the other day, in Latest Reagan Revolution Price Tag: A $313 Billion Wage Cut , (Please

Read the full article →

Bill Gross: Fed Policy Is A ‘Brazen’ ‘Ponzi Scheme’

October 27, 2010

The Fed should stop meddling with the economy now, before it does more damage, say two top asset managers. The Fed Reserve Bank’s quantitative easing program, expected to begin next week, in which the central bank will go on a spending spree to inject more money into the economy, will deal untold damage to the system it attempts to support, say Pimco managing director Bill Gross and GMO chief investment strategist Jeremy Grantham. These purchasing strategies, in which the Fed will likely buy government bonds, intending to lower interest rates and stimulate demand, don’t work, Gross and Grantham say in letters to investors: They actually make things worse. “I ask you: Has there ever been a Ponzi scheme so brazen?” Gross says. “There has not.” Gross says that government debt has always operated in a Ponzi-like manner. The U.S., he says, can rely on future investments to pay for its current expenditures, in a theoretically unending chain. But in this case, Gross says, the government will be its own investor, feeding its own Ponzi machine. “Instead of simply paying for maturing debt with receipts from financial sector creditors … the Fed has joined the party itself. Rather than orchestrating the game from on high, it has jumped into the pond with the other swimmers,” Gross writes. “There is no need — as with Charles Ponzi — to find an increasing amount of future gullibles, they will just write the check themselves.” Gross, it should be noted, has a huge personal stake in the matter. His company, Pimco, invests in bonds — as Reuters notes, Pimco’s bond-focused Total Return Fund, which Gross runs, has about $252 billion in assets, making it the world’s largest bond fund . When Gross criticizes the Fed’s anticipated quantitative easing, he complains that it will likely boost inflation, which would deal a severe blow to bonds, ultimately reducing their value (and his fortune). “Bondholders, while immediate beneficiaries, will likely eventually be delivered on a platter to more fortunate celebrants,” he writes. Grantham, whose firm manages more than $94 billion in assets , also had some choice words for the Fed. The title of his report, “Night of the Living Fed,” not only conveys the danger he anticipates from quantitative easing (it’s “a play on the traditional scary Halloween season,” Reuters explains) but also suggests that the Fed’s program will artificially — and harmfully — jolt the tepid economy. “If I were a benevolent dictator, I would strip the Fed of its obligation to worry about the economy and ask it to limit its meddling to attempting to manage inflation,” he writes. “I would force it to swear off manipulating asset prices through artificially low rates and asymmetric promises of help in tough times. … It would be a better, simpler, and less dangerous world.” The Fed’s powers are limited to adjusting the currency — setting interest rates and determining how much money is in circulation. By taking that limited power to its furthest possible extreme, Gross and Grantham say, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is making matters worse. Real stimulation, Grantham writes, will come from elsewhere. “If you really want to worry about growth, you should be concerned about sliding education standards and an aging population,” Grantham says in his letter. Gross, in his letter, makes an argument similar to Grantham’s, with a similar metaphor. He suggests that the economy might be stronger in the long run if the Fed were to allow it to grow naturally, “from admittedly lower levels.” “The Fed, on Wednesday, however, will decide that it is better to keep the patient on life support with an adrenaline injection and a following morphine drip than to risk its demise and ultimate rebirth in another form,” Gross writes. So outraged is Gross by the Fed’s anticipated policy that he gives it a nickname. “I call it a Sammy scheme, in honor of Uncle Sam and the politicians (as well as its citizens) who have brought us to this critical moment in time,” Gross says. “It is not a Bernanke scheme, because this is his only alternative and he shares no responsibility for its origin. It is a Sammy scheme — you and I, and the politicians that we elect every two years — deserve all the blame.

Read the full article →

Michael Hudson: How Sex, Drugs, and Fraud Drove the Financial Crisis

October 27, 2010

So my new book, The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America–and Spawned a Global Crisis , is now out and about. (Sorry for the long subtitle. Needed to be said.) I wanted share some quotes from the book. They give the flavor, I think, of the corruption that fueled America’s mortgage frenzy and helped produced the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Given the current robosigning, document-backdating foreclosure crisis , it’s worth thinking about what happens when fraud and recklessness go unchecked. Here goes: “I became a thief. And unfortunately, I found I was a very good thief.” “We are all here to make as much fucking money as possible. Bottom line. Nothing else matters.” “Anything that benefited production — that benefited me and benefited my wallet– I’d do it.” “It’s hard to have a guilty conscience if you don’t have a conscience.” “Roland could be the biggest bastard in the world and the most charming guy in the world. And it could be minutes apart.” “He fucked me. But within reason.” “Deep down inside he was a good man. But he had an evil side. When he pulled that out, it was bad. He could be extremely cruel.” “People don’t need access to predatory lenders. That’s like saying people need access to poison, or children need access to mumps.” “If you don’t find the true pain, you won’t write the loan.” “Imagine what happens if the housing bubble bursts.” “These people, you had all the confidence in the world in them.” “Tell him to do what ever it takes to close that loan or it’s his ass.” “Let’s compare W-2s. I made over two million dollars. What did you do?” “There’s nothing in the world more dangerous than a sales presentation in the hands of a salesman.” “Your people find too much fraud!” And, finally, subprime billionaire, mega-political donor and one-time U.S. ambassador Roland Arnall, explaining, in testimony before Congress, why his company, Ameriquest, engaged in widespread predatory lending: “Stuff happens.” Michael Hudson is a staff writer with the Center for Public Integrity and author of The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America–and Spawned a Global Crisis . An excerpt from The Monster can be found here .

Read the full article →

Video: Barnes & Noble’s Lynch Doubts Nook Will Curb Book Sales

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — William Lynch, chief executive officer for Barnes & Noble Inc., talks with Bloomberg’s Lisa Murphy about the company’s new Nook electronic reader with a color touchscreen. Lynch also discusses Barnes & Noble’s stock and the book store industry. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Pancreatic Cancer Gestation May Allow Early Detection

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Pancreatic cancer, long thought by doctors to be fast growing and almost unbeatable, develops slowly enough to allow for at least a decade of screening that may increase chances of survival. Bloomberg’s Shannon Pettypiece reports. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

15 Annoying Retailer Habits: Daily Finance

October 27, 2010

As the U.S. economy limps out of recession, retailers need to fight for every dollar. But the tactics they use to get customers to spend extra are clearly wearing thin.

Read the full article →

Tom Fox: Rethinking the Workplace in the 21st Century

October 27, 2010

As the director of the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Government Leadership, I spend a lot of time interacting with federal leaders about a wide range of management issues. In my discussion with these leaders, there is one topic that consistently comes up: teleworking. Yet with all the talk from federal managers and their employees about the desirability of teleworking in government, it has led to insufficient progress and action. In fact, the federal government who, once a leader in teleworking and other work flexibilities, has lost its momentum with less than six percent of the 1.9 million federal workforce — about 102,900 employees — teleworking at least one day a month. One of the major barriers to implementing telework in federal agencies is the assumption by managers that the physical presence of employees equals strong performance. They believe better performance measures are often not available to them. However, it’s important that federal managers remember that performance is measured by productivity and results, not by face time. When strategically deployed, teleworking and other flexible work arrangements can help improve employee performance, job satisfaction, and work-life balance, and decrease the costs of commuting by getting employees off the road on scheduled days of the week or by allowing for nontraditional hours that can result in shorter commutes. Furthermore, with thousands of federal employees eligible to retire and our government in critical need of specialized professional skills, this is a critical time for federal agencies to change the way flexible work arrangements are viewed. To attract and retain the best talent, federal agencies need to use flexible programs as a strategic tool. The key for federal managers is to design a teleworking policy that makes the most of your employees’ time and efforts. With October marking National Work & Family Month, here are four tips for effective implementation in your office: Forget about the old ways. Before entering the fray of telecommuting, you’ll need to banish thoughts of your employees sitting around in their pajamas watching game shows all day. Quite the contrary. Research shows that telecommuting employees work longer hours because they’ve avoided wasting time sitting in traffic. Establish the rules. The expectations for telecommuting employees and for managers should be crystal clear. At the outset, define employee accessibility during work hours, office coverage, unexpected mission-critical work demands and procedures to deal with abuse. As with leadership in any situation, articulating expectations is critical. Focus on outcomes, not face time. Work output and positive outcomes are the measure of value, not face time. You’ll need to engage in the hard work of ) determining which jobs are appropriate for teleworking and identifying concrete performance measures to ensure that they’re achieving your team’s goals while out of the office. In other words, trust but verify. Show them the money. Reducing the amount of people in the office means reducing the amount of office space and equipment you need, which in turn reduces spending. I don’t know of a boss who wouldn’t be impressed with your ability to cut costs especially when that’s paired with better results. Make sure you build in the cost-benefits into your budget, including the costs of any technology needs. One example of a successful government telework program is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), where 82 percent of eligible employees telework. Or check out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), where one employee moved to Kenya when her husband was transferred there. She has been working remotely from Africa since the move and meeting or exceeding all of her obligations, according to James McDermott, the NRC’s director of human resources.

Read the full article →

Stephen M. Wing: Workplace Flexibility: Ensuring Success for the 21st Century

October 27, 2010

Corporate Voices was pleased to participate in the Women’s Bureau’s National Dialogue on Workplace Flexibility in Dallas on October 20. The Dialogue marked the first in a series that the Women’s Bureau will organize around the country to discuss how employers can use flexibility to empower their employees and their families, and to become more competitive in the global economy. The Dialogue on Wednesday was held in the Dallas Fort Worth area-an area with the highest growth rate of small businesses in America. There, small and medium sized businesses, advocates, researchers, business associations, union leaders, government agencies, and employees gathered to discuss the challenges and successes of making flexibility work for small businesses. This was an especially timely Dialogue, occurring during National Work and Family Month, when we are shining the spotlight on what role corporate and federal policy can play in helping the millions of Americans that continue to struggle to manage the dual demands of work and family. Sara Manzano-Diaz, director of the Women’s Bureau, Tina Tchen, director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis gave opening remarks. They highlighted flexibility as a critical recruitment, retention, and talent development tool that businesses can use to support workers throughout all phases of their lives. Corporate Voices approaches flexibility in much the same way- we take a life-cycle approach to flexibility, recognizing that it enables new mothers to continue nursing , working mothers and fathers to take care of their families, students to work while continuing their education, and the elderly to continue working while enjoying their retirement. We also recognize that flexibility can support diversity in the workplace by empowering women, minorities, working learners, and the elderly. Speakers noted that small businesses are in a unique position to offer a culture of flexibility to support these groups, especially small businesses owned and operated by women. They also noted that often times when flexibility is available, it is modestly used, however still yields a positive impact. Another main theme discussed during the breakout sessions was the business imperative for flexibility , and the value of measuring flexibility’s impact on the business bottom line. Kathleen Wu, partner at Andrews Kurth LLP and one of the main speakers during the plenary session, said, “You measure what you value, and you value what you measure.” This sentiment was echoed by Ted Childs, Jr., principal of Ted Childs, LLC, during his closing remarks when he recounted the value of quantifying the positive business benefits that flexibility offers by helping to retain and motivate top talent. Corporate Voices, in conjunction with its partner companies, has published business research documenting the quantifiable business impacts of flexibility, as well as research showing that it works well with an hourly workforce . Especially for small businesses with limited capital, flexible work arrangements offer a cost-effective way to engage workers and enable them to balance the dual demands of work and life. Yet another main theme was the complexity of workplace flexibility, what it means to different employers and workers, how it should be implemented across different industries, how it can be implemented while still ensuring a small business’ compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, and what public policies can support flexible work arrangements . The Dialogue in Dallas created the opportunity for many stakeholders to exchange valuable viewpoints and experiences, yet much is left to be done in terms of expanding the knowledge and awareness of the positive business and employee benefits of flexibility. Corporate Voices looks forward to helping expand this awareness through its national workplace flexibility campaign , in conjunction with the Women’s Bureau’s Dialogues, now being planned through June 2011. Corporate Voices’ national workplace flexibility campaign seeks to create a broader awareness of the positive impact workplace flexibility can offer to workers and to the business bottom-line. It will create the forward momentum critically needed to expand workplace flexibility within the private sector. For more information on how to get involved in this campaign, please visit: CorporateVoices.org/our-work/flexcampaign .

Read the full article →

Video: Marangi Doubts FCC to Act in News Corp.-Cablevision Spat

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Chris Marangi, an analyst at Gabelli & Co., talks about the possibility that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will intervene in the dispute between News Corp. and Cablevision Systems Corp. over program fees. Marangi talks with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Jones Says MySpace Relaunch Is `Completely New’ Product

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Michael Jones, president and chief executive officer of MySpace Inc., discusses the company’s new website design launched today. Jones speaks with Scarlet Fu and Ron Grover on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness.” Beverly Hills, California-based MySpace is owned by News Corp. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Comptel Announces the New Head of Latin American and Caribbean Business

October 27, 2010

HELSINKI, FINLAND–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) – Comptel Corporation (NASDAQ OMX Helsinki: CTL1V), the leading vendor of dynamic Operations Support System (OSS) software , today announced that it has appointed Mr. Diego Becker as vice president CALA (Caribbean & Latin America), reporting to Mr Simo Sääskilahti, Comptel’s Acting CEO. Based in Buenos Aires, Diego Becker joined Comptel in 2009 and has been responsible until now for sales in South America. Comptel’s Latin America headquarters will remain in Sao Paulo.

Read the full article →

John Haggerty Named Vice President of Biomedical Services for InfuSystem

October 27, 2010

MADISON HEIGHTS, MI–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) –  InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. ( OTCBB : INHI ) ( OTCBB : INHIW ) ( OTCBB : INHIU ), a leading provider of infusion pumps and associated products and services, has appointed John Haggerty as Vice President of Biomedical Services. In this newly-created position, Mr. Haggerty will oversee biomedical repair, recertification and maintenance services provided from InfuSystem’s Biomedical Centers of Excellence in Michigan, Kansas, California, and Ontario, Canada.

Read the full article →

Hunt Ramsbottom: Prop 23: It’s About Our Future

October 27, 2010

The November 2 election is less than a week away. At the polls, voters will determine the fate of California’s leadership role in developing a clean energy economy. Proposition 23, an initiative on the ballot, aims to suspend landmark environmental laws in California. If Prop 23 is approved by voters, the implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32 or AB 32) will be suspended until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. Currently California’s unemployment rate is 12.4%. Jobs are being lost every day. Businesses are closing. Yet the one sector that is driving employment and growth in California is clean energy. The clean technology industry employs over a half-million Californians, and these jobs are growing at a rate more rapid than the statewide average. Since the implementation of AB 32, California has garnered over $9 billion of private investment capital and is the center for clean technology innovation. With the passage of Prop 23, California would lose its market leadership and thousands of clean technology jobs. Prop 23 would destabilize the investment market and prompt companies to reduce investment or relocate to other states and nations with strong environmental policies and incentives. In the race to lead the clean technology revolution, Prop 23 will stunt the growth of California’s green economy. AB 32 was enacted in 2006 with the support of businesses, labor, environmental and health organizations. AB 32 requires California’s greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to the levels of 1990 by the year 2020. To meet these goals, AB 32 provides the authority for implementing California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), both of which create immediate demand for large-scale, low-carbon and renewable transportation fuel and electric power. AB 32 also authorizes California to create a market for greenhouse gas reduction credits. As part of this program, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would develop protocols for certifying the low-carbon and other pollution-reduction attributes of clean energy technologies. Once these protocols are in place, California’s clean technology companies will have a powerful mechanism to sell their clean energy technology and products in the broader U.S. and global marketplaces. Together, the RPS, LCFS and AB32, programs create the essential elements for California’s clean technology companies to invest billions of dollars in new equipment and technology, which will provide new jobs for California workers, enabling California to become a global leader in clean technology. A “Yes” vote on Prop 23 jeopardizes both economic growth and the improvement of air quality in California, and delays the reduction in the emission of detrimental greenhouse gases. Many businesses and organizations oppose Prop 23, Rentech, Inc. being one of them. Rentech is a Westwood-based company with domestically developed technologies that process waste materials into ultra-clean, renewable synthetic diesel and green base-load electricity. These products are direct substitutes for traditional diesel and power sources and have very low lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Rentech is a founding member of the Green Technology Leadership Group (GTLG), an organization committed to providing policy leadership for the clean energy sector. The GTLG launched an innovative new media campaign to oppose Prop 23. The GTLG “No on Prop 23″ campaign is producing a series of video shorts with SHFT.com , the environmental new media site founded by actor-activist Adrian Grenier and film producer Peter Glatzer. The videos are being disseminated to high-traffic websites to target over one million voters. The videos, viewable at www.greentechleadership.org , focus on the growth of jobs and economic investment as a result of California’s environmental policies such as AB 32, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and Renewable Portfolio Standard. Prop 23 will stop job creation, investment and innovation threatening California’s economy and environment. It’s about our future. D. Hunt Ramsbottom is President and CEO of Rentech, Inc. Rentech, which stands for Renewable Energy Technologies, is a global provider of clean energy solutions. The Company is developing projects for the production of certified synthetic fuels and electric power from carbon-containing materials such as biomass and waste resources. Please visit www.rentechinc.com for more information.

Read the full article →

Jonathan Bernstein: Product Recalls — Tips for Businesses, Media and Consumers

October 27, 2010

Cribs. Strollers. Tylenol (again). Riding Mowers. Aromatherapy Kits. These are just a few of the recent recalls tracked at the consumer website Recalls.org . Through my work in support of product recalls, both food and consumer products, I have identified trends in both well-done and poorly done recalls that prompted me to offer these ten tips to businesses that may have to go through this process — and it’s also a 10-point system by which consumers and the media can evaluate a business’ performance during a recall. Remember That Rapid Response To A Known Product Problem Minimizes Damage, so the time to examine the systems you have in place for recall is NOW, not when you already have a product needing recall. Have A Product Recall Plan Ready To Use Anytime, one that covers the operational, legal and public relations (internal and external) components of making a recall. Hint: “We’ll wing it when it happens” is not a product recall plan. Have The Core Members Of A Product Recall Team Identified And Trained In Advance. It may be necessary to have one team at a corporate level to direct recall activities overall, and individual teams more focused on the operational aspects of product recall at the sales/marketing and/or manufacturing levels. And you’d be amazed at how some people you think will be cool in a crisis actually aren’t, and vice versa – behavior that often is identified through training that includes simulating a recall. Have Back-ups For Critical People And Recall Systems. Assume that some recall-related lead personnel will not be available when you need them. Assume that the computer system where you maintain your stakeholder contact lists has crashed. Assume other similar worst-case scenarios and make your back-up plans accordingly. Have Contact Lists For All Stakeholders Set Up On Automated notification Systems. This is particularly important for end-users and distributors of your products. You can’t rely on the media alone to reach them. Consider The Use Of Virtual Incident Management. There are a number of Internet-centered systems that allow recall team members to exchange real-time information, access current communications documents, and keep team leaders updated even if the team is geographically scattered. Make Recall-related Decisions That Are Based On Protecting Your Brand/reputation And Not Just On Your Legal Risks. The infamous Bridgestone-Firestone recall started far too late because the company’s leadership was considering risks other than the most important one — the risk of aggravating the court of public opinion. Communicate Internally And Externally. Remember that every employee and, often, dedicated contractors are public relations representatives and crisis managers for your organization, whether you want them to be or not. You must empower them with reassuring messages about the recall suitable for use at their respective levels of the company, and you don’t want them to learn of the recall from external sources before they hear about it from you. Don’t Wait For The CPSC, FDA, Or Other Regulatory Agencies To Protect Your Reputation. While each regulatory agency that can get involved in product recalls has its own process to follow, that process can often delay how much time passes before product consumers and distributors are notified — a delay which, in worst-case scenarios, can cause injuries or deaths. In that event, the court of public opinion may react very negatively to both your organization and the regulator — but you’re the one whose revenue and reputation will be most impacted. Focus Special Communications On Highly Disgruntled Customers And Distributors. In this Age of the Internet, and in a litigious society, a few angry people can make waves completely disproportionate to their numbers or even to the injury suffered (if any). The recall process should include an “Escalated Cases” team to focus on such complaints when they’re received. Businesses: in many industries, recalls are inevitable. But if you don’t want your crisis to become a disaster, learn from the mistakes of others. Reporters: don’t let organizations get away with mediocre recall communications. Consumers: have you been told what you need to know about a recall? If the list above says “no,” then complain, loudly! That’s the only way organizations will start to do it right.

Read the full article →

Martin Wolf: ‘U.S. Voters Are Suing Dr. Obama’

October 27, 2010

An ambulance stops by the roadside to help a man suffering from a heart attack. After desperate measures, the patient survives. Brought into hospital, he then makes a protracted and partial recovery. Then, two years later, far from feeling grateful, he sues the paramedics and doctors.

Read the full article →

Anthony Tjan: The Fallacy of Financial Metrics

October 27, 2010

In both entrepreneurial and larger companies, we too often spend time focusing on the desired financial performance target, rather than the inputs that drive those numbers. Because boards, investors and management demand an objective way to measure performance, we often go right to the result without focusing on what caused those results. Financial performance is a result, a by-product, a consequence of something else. The financial “numbers” ultimately represent the scorecard we care about, but they do not help us understand how to score. When we ask management teams what are the most important drivers (or what we call operating metrics) of their financial results, I usually see one of two reactions: a) a dog in front of the television blank stare or b) a further breakdown of financial results: “sales on the West Coast drove the results.” When pressed further, we may get even further sales breakdowns which tell us little. As my partner, Dick Harrington, says, “We end up slicing baloney with a scalpel” and are talking too much about the “what” without getting the “why.” Operating metrics are the inputs that correlate or drive the desired results of a business. If you focus on the inputs, you need to worry less about the financial outputs. Examples of inputs include customer convenience, product quality, customer retention, or customer referral rate. Let me provide a couple of concrete examples. In many of our retail or restaurant investments, we espouse a value proposition of convenience. The more convenient we can make the experience, the happier the customer will be, and the more likely we will have customer repeat and referral, meaning not just higher revenues but higher quality of revenues. How does convenience translate into a measurable operating metric? As a proxy for convenience we measure metrics such as turn-away rates and wait times for service. That is, when a prospective patron walks in or makes a call for a reservation how often do we turn them away because we are full or short-staffed? We want that turn-away number as low as possible to reinforce convenience. If we detect a repeat issue we can see how to solve it, perhaps through improved reservations systems or increased staffing. Other metrics we might measure include weekly cleanliness scores, customer loyalty, and periodic customer satisfaction reviews. Of course we will look at these operating metrics alongside the financial and more quantitative results, but again–the point is to uncover the correlation between operating drivers and financial outcomes. Businesses need to focus on the 3-5 metrics that represent the most important drivers of value creation. It helps align an organization towards doing the right thing in a repeatable and scalable manner. When you just ask a team to chase results on a plan, you may never be sure what drove that result even if you are successful. There is a difference between having a good year of numbers and a sustainable business model that allows for more predictable year-over-year results. From a managerial tool perspective, a weekly or monthly dashboard that highlights not just the financial results, but also the operating metrics is smarter and more actionable. A dashboard with operating metrics serves effectively as an exception-based report where you look for deviations from the norm of operating metric levels and then consider whether the issue is systemic or one-off. It is true that people behave based on what they are measured by. Here are some guidelines on setting a culture driven by operating metrics and measuring your team on the right stuff: 1. Ensure management understands the difference between operating metrics and financial metrics – operating inputs versus financial ratios. The latter is for number-crunching analysts to focus on, the former is for managers and it is what will make the latter automatic. 2. Clearly communicate across the organization a small number of the most important operating metrics. It takes some thought to filter through the many possible inputs / operating metrics, but pick only the 3-5 that have the highest correlation to the desired financial goals. 3. Regularly review an operating metric dashboard, but focus on exceptions. You’ll be able to scan the health of your business very quickly. In an earlier blog, I interviewed superstar Oprah doctor and cardiac surgeon Mehmet Oz, and discussed the vitals for good personal health. Indeed, an excellent analogy is that operating metrics should represent the blood pressure and cholesterol levels of a company. Focus on the right ones, regularly measure them, and if they are out of whack, do something before your company has a heart attack. This article first appeared on Harvard Business Publishing on June 8, 2009.

Read the full article →

Video: Lockhart Says Foreclosure Freeze Hurting Housing Market

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — James Lockhart, vice chairman for WL Ross & Co., talks about the impact of a foreclosure freeze on the U.S. housing market. Lockhart, former director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, also discusses the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the outlook for Irish and U.K. real estate markets. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Jack Myers: Backlash Against Innovation in Media and Advertising Industry

October 27, 2010

As unlikely as it may seem, a controversy seems to be brewing about the need for – and role of – innovation in the media and advertising business. Not only is innovation overwhelming executives and their teams, but it is causing too many companies to take their eyes – and budgets – off the basic fundamentals required for day-to-day business management and client services. Attend almost any industry event, conference, convention or corporate meeting and a common theme is innovation and the organizational changes required to embrace innovation. Yet companies continue to struggle with integrating innovation into their day-to-day business realities. The Online Business Dictionary definition of innovation may explain this paradox. Innovation in business is the “Process by which an idea or invention is translated into a good or service for which people will pay. To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need. In business, innovation results often from the application of a technical idea to decrease the gap between the needs or expectations of the customers and the performance of a firm’s products.” Are you having the same “a ha” moment I had when I read this? In most of our leading media and advertising companies, not to mention the marketers they serve, innovation is perceived as a cost rather than a revenue opportunity. Innovative tools and services are often not replicable on a meaningful scale without synchronous sapping of resources from traditional businesses, and innovative business opportunities are rarely more economical to implement than existing businesses. Innovation in advertising and media can also all-too-often be ideas in search of a need. Hundreds of millions – probably billions – have been invested by institutional and venture investors in technology-based innovation with the belief and expectation that advertiser dollars would easily cover the investment and deliver 10 to 20 time multiples. But to a significant extent, media advances over the past decade have added huge amounts of advertising inventory enabling advertisers to reach audiences with increased cost efficiency without delivering measurable and sustainable business enhancements. Agencies, marketers and media sellers must invest heavily in resources and infrastructure to evaluate and consider the thousands of tech-based new entrants in the media business, without meaningully and measurably “decreasing the gap between the needs or expectations of the customers and the performance of a firm’s products.” Based on research I’ve conducted among agency, media and marketer executives, the average company in our industry invests 65% to 85% of its spending in basic business maintenance and organizational overhead, including general administrative costs, sales, marketing and communications, Fifteen to 25% of spending is typically invested in competitive positioning focused on market share growth, including new business development, incentives, advertising, research and product enhancement. The average company spends less than 5% on business expansion models that require the introduction of new ideas, goods, services, practices and personnel – the traditional definition of innovation. No established well developed company can afford to spend much more than that. Yet ask the majority of senior managers in our business what their primary focus is for servicing existing clients, developing new business and for assuring their company’s future, and the answer invariably will include innovation. The actual financial commitment may be less that 5% but the investment in strategic intent, business development presentation content, public relations messaging and meeting time is far more. The goal of innovation is positive change. Innovation leading to increased productivity is the fundamental source of increasing wealth in an economy. A backlash against innovation should not be misconstrued as a reversion to the tried and true gospel of traditional media. Rather it is an appropriate demand that innovation be backed by solid economic models that validate the need for the products and services being developed, define the revenue model and profitability, prove the scalability, and demonstrates how the clients’ economic best interests are being served. To comment, visit www.jackmyersthinktank.com . JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers are free and underwritten as an industry service by corporate subscribers to Jack Myers Media Business Report . For subscription information, visit www.myersreport.com . Visit the archives of JackMyersThinkTank and MediaBizBloggers . Jack Myers can be contacted directly at jm@jackmyers.com . This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com

Read the full article →

Gibson Vance: U.S. Chamber: Civil Justice Hypocrites

October 27, 2010

In a speech delivered earlier this month, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue called litigation “one of our most powerful tools for making sure that federal agencies follow the law and are held accountable.” But replace the words “federal agencies” with “negligent corporations,” and the sentence would be unlikely to ever come out of Donohue’s mouth. Especially considering that today is the Chamber’s annual Legal Reform Summit – an event underwritten by its multinational corporate members that promotes undermining the civil justice system to weaken the basic legal protections of American workers and consumers. The Chamber’s hypocrisy – blocking justice for everyday Americans while using the courts liberally for its own pro-corporate agenda – is the subject of a new report released today by the American Association for Justice (AAJ). The report exposes the Chamber as one of the most aggressive litigators in Washington, entering lawsuits at a rate of twice weekly. Rare is the case involving any kind of business issue that does not prompt a filing from the Chamber’s litigation arm – be it litigating to force workers, instead of employers, to pay for their own safety equipment; opposing any move to combat climate change; or fighting on behalf of lead paint manufacturers, big tobacco and asbestos. In the wake of the economic meltdown, consider the Chamber’s role in opposing financial reforms. Since 1998 – beyond spending at least $380 million lobbying on behalf of Wall Street – the Chamber has entered litigation over and over in its effort to roll back financial reforms and defend the likes of corporate fraud poster children AIG and Enron. It filed a brief defending former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling before the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Skilling , arguing that enforcing the fraud laws under which Skilling had been convicted would deter legitimate business dealings. It also filed briefs seeking lower sentences for Merrill Lynch executives convicted in the Enron scandal. And then there’s AIG, the bailed-out insurance giant that gave nearly $25 million to the Chamber to start the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), the very mission of which being to prevent the American public from holding negligent corporations accountable in court via “tort reform.” In return for its hefty financial support, AIG received a lobbying and PR campaign pushing Wall Street’s case – at the same time that AIG and its CEO Hank Greenberg were being investigated by numerous agencies on a variety of fraud charges. AIG’s current CEO sits among those of other insurance, oil and drug companies on ILR’s 46-person board. These are the corporations that have the most to gain by blocking the legal system to the American public. The Chamber also litigates against the regulators themselves. In 2005, it filed suit against the SEC to block a reform measure designed to protect the interests of consumers investing in mutual funds. Of course, after the financial meltdown, that push for deregulation was replaced, incredibly, by a demand that the government instead bailout corporations. And even in this bailout, the Chamber lobbied to include provisions that gave complete immunity to those who committed fraud, protected executive golden parachutes, and deprived families from protecting their mortgages through bankruptcy. It then fought tirelessly against financial regulatory reform legislation, promising it would “continue to work vigorously through all available avenues – regulatory, legislation and legal” to block the legislation. The Chamber’s “one rule for corporations, another rule for everybody else” motto has come at the expense of our entire financial system, ill-treated workers and injured consumers. Of course, the Chamber has every right to seek what it believes to be justice in a court of law, even if representing the most deplorable corporate interests. But it must be called out when it then spends millions of dollars to prevent Americans from holding wrongdoers accountable in the same courtrooms it uses aggressively to advance the agenda of its multinational corporate membership. All should have access to the civil justice system. But this right to justice belongs to all Americans – not just to the Chamber and big business. To see AAJ’s report, “The Chamber Litigation Machine: How the Chamber Uses Lawsuits to Keep Americans Out of Court,” visit www.justice.org/USChamber.

Read the full article →

Matt Sledge: Aqueduct Report: Jay-Z Was Clueless

October 27, 2010

The New York inspector general’s report on the tainted Aqueduct bidding process contains a little-noticed tidbit about the Aqueduct Entertainment Group’s most famous would-be investor. Jay-Z, as it turns out, never actually inked a deal with AEG. “Contrary to numerous media reports,” the investigation finds, nothing was ever made official. (Earlier this year multiple outlets seemed to suggest that Jay-Z had an active stake in the project). What’s more, Jay also didn’t seem to know much about the project, Inspector General Joseph Fisch determined after taking his testimony. That conversation “revealed”: scant knowledge of AEG’s proposal and its composition, no finalized agreement with AEG, and no lobbying by him whatsoever. Regardless, his notoriety caused his name to be mentioned in most news articles discussing AEG which brought his name, and well-known conviction, to the forefront. So much for the the savvy, take-charge CEO persona Jay-Z likes to present to the world. The report seems to suggest that he was little more than a hype man for the AEG bid. The project’s real heavy hitters may have been hoping to use Jay to impress just one person: Governor David Paterson. A February report in the New York Post suggested the AEG consortium chose Jay-Z to gain the favor of the governor, who became friends with the rapper last year. The multimillionaire music impresario’s part of the AEG bid bears a striking resemblance to his role with the New Jersey Nets. Although he controls only a tiny share of the basketball franchise, his stake is trumpeted loudly in promotional materials for the related Atlantic Yards arena project, and he was prominently featured at its groundbreaking in Brooklyn, along with Governor Paterson. As Norman Oder has perceptively written of the groundbreaking, putting the rapper “front and center” was “a brilliant move relying on the unsurprising shallowness of a star-struck press.” For AEG, however, Jay-Z’s inclusion in the project backfired. New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was apparently irritated with the governor’s fanboy crush on the best rapper alive . On January 29 he imposed as a stipulation for his support of the bid a rule prohibiting anyone “convicted within the past 15 years of a felony” from investing in the project. Jay-Z’s misdemeanor conviction (for stabbing a record producer) presumably would have disqualified him. The IG found that Silver’s condition was “specifically directed” at Jay-Z and one other potential financial backer. But Jay-Z didn’t immediately drop out, instead waiting “several weeks” until an investigation on him was initiated — and a subpoena was sent. It wasn’t until March 8, after he had drawn additional critical scrutiny from the press, that he officially backed out. On the Aqueduct deal, Shawn Carter’s much lauded (and self-lauded) business acumen was nowhere to be seen.

Read the full article →

Woodbridge Group Expands M&A Services to Japanese Market

October 27, 2010

NEW HAVEN, CT–(Marketwire – October 27, 2010) –  Woodbridge Group is pleased to announce its expansion to Japan with the addition of Tom Kastner, a technology-focused investment banker who was based in Japan for nine years.

Read the full article →

Heidi Hartmann: Democrats Win on Women-Friendly Economic Policies

October 27, 2010

After the crash, the downturn was dubbed a “mancession.” As the meme continues to circulate, the Roosevelt Institute’s New Deal 2.0 blog asked leading thinkers to help sort fact from fiction. Are men suffering more than women in a weak economy? Is Washington doing enough to address female unemployment? How do we ensure a jobs agenda that’s fair and equitable? In the third part of an ongoing series, ” The Myth of the Mancession? Women & the Jobs Crisis “, economist Heidi Hartmann describes all the ways the current administration has worked to aid women. A report released last Thursday by the White House makes an excellent case that women have benefited greatly from the policies and programs advanced by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. Also see Speaker Pelosi’s report released Friday, highlighting the top 5 gains for women in the 111th Congress and how few Republicans voted for each. By inference, women will suffer if the November elections shift the balance of power between the parties. Unfortunately, many women, leaders included, probably do not know just how much women have benefited from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , otherwise known as the economic stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (health care reform), and other policy changes in the past 22 months. Partly, that’s because the story is difficult to piece together — several laws and government agencies are relevant. Partly, it’s because in this economy many people have lost more than they’ve gained. If you lost your job and then get unemployment insurance benefits, even if they’re larger than they would have been without the stimulus (the stimulus provided an additional $25 per week for every worker receiving jobless benefits and encouraged states to cover types of unemployment they didn’t before, helping more women qualify), you’re mostly focused on what you’ve lost, since the benefits average only about two thirds of prior earnings. Partly, it’s because of incomplete and inaccurate reporting. Many observers, including the various government agencies, have a tendency to look at only one slice of the pie and not see the whole. Recovery.gov , the government website that tracks spending on the stimulus, reports primarily on the contracts and grants issued by federal agencies for infrastructure and other project spending, showing where the projects are and how many jobs the grant recipients reported that they created. The dollars shown as allocated or spent do not add to the total in the law, because grant and contract spending were less than 1/3 of the total of approximately $800 billion in stimulus spending. If one focuses on this slice of the pie, it’s easy to suggest, as Bryce Covert did , that women will be left out because they don’t hold a large share of construction jobs. Getting more women into construction jobs would be great, of course, because they often pay reasonably well without requiring a college degree and women are woefully underrepresented in the industry, consistent with decades of neglect by (and underfunding of) government enforcement agencies. During President Obama’s transition and the legislative debate over the stimulus in January and February 2009, the women’s movement tried hard to get a goal set for the share of these jobs that should go to women. That didn’t happen, but the Recovery Act does include $20 million for grants designated for transportation and technology training and for supportive services for women, minorities and disadvantaged populations underrepresented in infrastructure-related employment. And Secretaries Solis (Labor) and LaHood (Transportation) and others have been touring the country emphasizing the need to hire women and minorities in federally funded contracts and to make sure women- and minority-owned businesses get a fair share of contacts and subcontracts. This is just the type of public education and training Covert says women need in order to participate equally in the newly funded jobs — too bad she didn’t indicate the Obama administration is working hard on this. But what about the other 2/3 of the stimulus spending pie? Who got that? Much of the non-infrastructure spending in the stimulus went to women because much of it was designed to help those in financial trouble, those with lower incomes, those with dependents, and older Americans, all of whom are disproportionately women. Approximately 60 percent of older Americans are women, women make up 95 percent of parents who raise children without a partner, women are lower earners than men, and they have lower average family incomes than do men. More than $14 billion went to one-time cash grants to older Americans. Twenty billion went to working and nonworking parents in the form of expanded tax credits that were refundable (cash grants) to those with such low income that they don’t owe any taxes. Another $116 billion went to the Making Work Pay Tax Credits, which reached all middle- and working-class taxpayers. Nearly $21 billion went to food stamp increases and $41 billion to unemployment benefit increases (both of these amounts were subsequently increased further) and $25 billion to enable those who lost jobs to retain health insurance at only 35 percent of its cost. The states got more than $4 billion to modernize their unemployment systems to cover more women and low-wage workers. The stimulus included nearly $11 billion in expanded Pell grants that help low- and moderate-income students attend college. All this adds to $248 billion that went directly to mostly low- and moderate-income individuals and their families. In addition, $141 billion went to the states to help them pay their share of Medicaid costs and for aid to education, creating jobs for teachers, teaching assistants, nurses, home health care aides, etc. These are the very jobs that Bryce Covert argues in her piece didn’t get as much funding as they should have. I would have liked to see them get more, too. But blame Congress, not President Obama, as Congress insisted on cutting proposed aid to the states substantially. While Covert is probably right that some hospitals have shut down, employment in health care has not fallen. In fact, health employment grew every month throughout the entire recession and continues to grow in the slow-job-growth-recovery we are in now, the only industry to do so (see an IWPR paper on the Great Recession ). And it’s worth noting that much of Medicaid spending goes to care for poor elderly patients, another area of care Covert claims was neglected. Moreover, the stimulus includes nearly $4 billion for job training, plus $500 million specifically for training in health care jobs and $680 million for training and services to the disabled. Employment in education also held up fairly well throughout the recession, but finally lost jobs in September as state and local government budgets continued to be pinched by the recession and slow recovery. President Obama requested supplemental funding for the states, but the Senate dawdled over and then reduced the amount, preventing sufficient aid from getting to the states and to school systems in time for the start of fall semester. (Similarly, the Senate has failed to extend a $2.7 billion block grant to the states that was included in the stimulus bill to increase TANF, or welfare, funding in this time of need and was used by the state to fund 250,000 jobs for low income parents and youth.) In her piece, Covert notes that eminent historians Linda Gordon and Eileen Boris emphasize the need to fund and upgrade low-paid women’s jobs in such fields as health and elder care and child care. Once again, just as with health care and elder care, Covert overlooked the opportunity to point out that the stimulus provides funding both for care of children and for training and wage improvements for child care workers. The stimulus included $4 billion in new funding for child care and Head Start, doubling the usual federal funding. More than $1 billion was earmarked for cost of living increases and staff training and other measures that would increase the quality of child care and of child care jobs. Covert helpfully makes the point that women’s earnings are more important than ever to their families because so many are co-earners or support families on their own, especially since more men have lost jobs than women since December 2007, when the Great Recession began. It would have been nice if Covert had acknowledged all the ways in which the stimulus and other federal spending helps women and their families, rather than focusing on assumed gaps for women that she failed to investigate thoroughly. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in August that the stimulus will have increased employment by 1.3 to 3.3 million Americans on average in 2010, the peak year of its impact. Given that the number of unemployed grew by nearly 8 million, many of us wish our government were doing even more to help people and boost the economy (see a statement from the Campaign for America’s Future ). Have women, men, and families been hurt by this massive recession? Unquestionably, yes. Have women been hurt more than men? Possibly, despite less job loss, because they started the recession with lower earnings and incomes and, as the primary family caregivers, they are likely doing even more care work at home as family budgets fall. Poverty has increased for nearly all demographic groups, and especially for single mothers and their children, who in good times and bad are always the most vulnerable. Our social safety net was largely shredded long before this recession began; it badly needs repair (please see a recent IWPR fact sheet on this point). The federal stimulus program has strengthened the safety net and prevented millions more from falling into poverty and unemployment. Has the federal stimulus program done less for women than men? I doubt that very much. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: When Is Your Midterm Election?

October 27, 2010

Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online Triggered by the upcoming mid-term elections , President Obama is assessing his change strategy, shuffling his leadership team, and getting ready for the next two years of his administration. If we put aside the political cacophony that accompanies this process, and view it strictly through an organizational lens , it’s a constructive set of activities: taking stock of what’s working and what’s not; reading the pulse of customers (citizens) and partners; resetting priorities; injecting new talent; and re-energizing the organization for the work ahead. Most companies are not forced by an election to push the reset button every two years — but imagine if they did. What if all managers had fixed terms and needed to be reappointed based on their performance? Would it lead to more honest feedback from customers and subordinates, and more frequent strategic reviews? Would it make managers more accountable for results and more willing to build strong teams? Or would it encourage managers to play it safe rather than taking risks that might reduce their chances of reappointment? Although not all managers are elected officials, organizations do have electoral rhythms. There are cycles for financial reporting, planning, and budgeting; as well as specific times for capital investment, information technology, and talent decisions. To some extent these activities function much like elections — they give us pause and force thoughtful assessment and planning. Unfortunately in many organizations, the rhythms keep shifting: cycles (such as budgeting) get elongated, different reviews are not well integrated, etc. What was intended to be reflective reevaluation becomes constant background noise, and as a result many managers treat these reviews as “exercises” to fulfill corporate requirements. So how can organizations and individual managers get more payoffs from their assessment rhythms, and accrue the benefits of an election cycle (without the costs of a campaign )? Let me suggest two steps — one for the executive team and one for every manager. If you are part of an executive team, take a holistic look at the various review processes that constitute the rhythm of the company. Can they be better integrated? Does the timing need to be changed? Are they really creating the value that is intended? For example, a few years ago, GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt realized that the company’s strategic planning process was becoming redundant with the budgeting process. The two were calling for much the same data, but during different time frames. To prevent unnecessary and repetitive work (which cascades to thousands of people in such a huge company), Immelt reframed the strategic planning process so that it was squarely focused on growth. He renamed it the Growth Playbook and made sure it came with straightforward instructions about what needed to be included (and what did not). The budgeting process then flowed naturally out of the growth plans with far less confusion. At the same time, the message that growth was the primary focus for strategic planning was hammered home. If you are a manager, take a look at your own personal rhythm. We all start careers, jobs, and assignments at different times — but if we don’t establish personal checkpoints , it’s easy to drift. Then one day you wake up and realize that your career is not progressing, or that you haven’t accomplished some key personal or professional goals. To avoid that kind of disappointment, set up your own rhythm — in advance. Pick a date (your work anniversary or birthday, for example) and use it as an opportunity for self-reflection. Do I need to reset priorities? Am I getting the experiences I need? What do I need to do differently to reach my objectives? Like an electoral cycle, corporate rhythms are important for the organization to periodically and regularly push the reset button ; these need to be made as effective and efficient as possible. However the corporate calendar shouldn’t determine your own reset timing and agenda. Only you can do that.

Read the full article →

Bob Winter Named Chief Creative Officer of Young & Rubicam Chicago

October 27, 2010

Creator of Budweiser’s “Real Men of Genius” Campaign Takes Creative Helm at Chicago Agency

Read the full article →

Eric J. Weiner: Why We Should Fear A China Crash

October 27, 2010

The stock market’s been on quite a roll lately, today’s decline notwithstanding. In October alone the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained more than 300 points, or around three percent. The other major stock market indices are up similar amounts as well. On Wall Street, the performance has been a powerful elixir to a dolorous summer. Look at a chart of the market’s performance over the past month and you’ll see a fairly steady upward climb. The only real hiccup was a single significant down day, October 19, last Tuesday. Of course, that was just one fluky trading day out of 252 in a year. But as is so often the case in the financial markets, it’s the one-day anomaly that people really should be paying close attention to. On October 19, the Dow fell 165 points, or 1.48 percent. The Nasdaq composite index and S&P 500 both lost more than 1.5 percent. The price of oil plummeted four percent and the value of numerous other commodities sank along with it. And the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note tanked as well. What happened to spook the financial markets? Simple. China’s central bank said it was planning to raise interest rates. Slightly. And the mere prospect of this act triggered fears that China’s government was ratcheting down its country’s economic growth. So traders and investors freaked out. Since then, the markets have resumed their rally and many Wall Streeters describe the episode as an overreaction to Beijing’s statement. And in a sense they’re right. The reality is the effects of any long range fiscal tightening in China wouldn’t be felt over here for a while. So knee-jerk investors who automatically dumped their holdings out of fear that China’ central bank was about to wreck the global financial markets might want to rethink that strategy. However, from a long-term financial perspective it would be unwise for Americans to dismiss this episode. Instead, the U.S. should pay careful attention to what happened on that day because it spotlights a fundamental misunderstanding of America’s relationship with China. The primary metaphor used to describe the tangled web of financial and economic connections between China and the U.S. is codependency . Traditionally, Americans have viewed this codependency as a levee holding back the full weight of China’s economic heft. The idea being that China owns so much U.S. debt and so many dollars that it only would be hurting itself if harmed the U.S. However, it turns out this codependency cuts both ways. As last Tuesday showed, the U.S. economy has become so reliant on China’s meteoric growth that any slowdown would have dire effects over here. Clearly America’s financial markets believe that the U.S. economy needs an aggressive China with companies and consumers ready to step in and fill the gaps in demand left by the battered West. And what’s more, Chinese officials know this as well. All of which helps explain why China has become so belligerent lately on a host of economic issues that American leaders are trying to press. For instance, U.S. officials have persistently accused China of manipulating the value of its currency, the renminbi, to keep the prices of its exports low. To head off a full-scale trade war the G20 over the weekend quickly put together a deal to avoid “competitive currency devaluations.” Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that China has started secretly embargoing shipments of rare earth minerals to the U.S., Europe, and Japan. So far Beijing’s response has been to deny all allegations and allow the value of the renminbi to rise slightly . It also has turned the currency manipulation accusations back on the U.S. by accusing Washington of unfairly using monetary policy to stimulate the American economy. And when the White House accused China of illegally subsidizing its clean energy industry a senior Chinese official sternly warned the U.S. that it “cannot win this trade fight.” Clearly China’s economic stances and rhetoric indicate that it’s no longer prepared to just go along with what the U.S. wants. Not surprisingly, China also is working the inside financial channels to make sure that America has a hard time putting together diplomatic coalitions to block its activities. For example, in July Chinese officials visited Greece and signed 14 business deals worth several billion dollars . And since then China also has offered to create a $5 billion fund to upgrade the Greek merchant shipping fleet. China also bought $558 million worth of bonds issued by Spain , and is in talks to make similar investments in troubled countries like Ireland and Portugal . In the “what have you done for me lately” global economy, China’s willingness to spread its cash around is creating goodwill where it never existed before. And it’s undercutting the West’s unity on crucial economic issues. But perhaps most importantly, Chinese central bankers now know that they hold an economic bomb that they can detonate whenever they want. All they have to do is temporarily slam the breaks on growth and watch financial markets in the U.S. and around the world grind to a standstill. That’s a very powerful position. So if codependency is going to remain the overarching metaphor for the entangled relationship between China and the U.S., America probably should reexamine the fine print in the arrangement. Because from here it looks like one side of the partnership is far more dependent than the other.

Read the full article →

Video: McCormick Says U.S. Bank Revenue Will Keep Shrinking

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Matt McCormick, a portfolio manager at Bahl & Gaynor Inc., discusses the outlook for U.S. bank revenue. McCormick speaks with Betty Liu, Sheila Dharmarajan and Adam Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Joseph A. Palermo: Civic-Minded Plutocrats

October 27, 2010

It’s truly touching how much interest in America’s great democratic experiment that our esteemed men and women of industry, finance, and commerce have shown in the 2010 midterm elections. Elementary school teachers across the land might lead civics lessons by pointing to these salt-of-the-Earth hedge-fund managers, oil tycoons, derivatives traders, and outsourcing zealots who are demonstrating such awe-inspiring civic mindedness. Their love of Jeffersonian democracy runs so deep they’re willing to invest millions of dollars in clandestine cash to fill the campaign coffers of some of the most extreme right-wing Senate candidates we’ve ever seen: Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, Carly Fiorina of California, Joe Miller of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Mike Lee of Utah, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ken Buck of Colorado, Sharron Angle of Nevada, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Since they’re willing to spend so much money influencing the direction of the nation’s politics might they also express this high sense of civic duty in paying their fair share of taxes at a time when their beloved country faces war and recession? Who are these dedicated citizens who so embody the Jeffersonian spirit? They’re Rob Collins of the “American Action Network”; Bruce Rastetter of the “American Future Fund”; the “60 Plus Association”; Steven Law of “American Crossroads”; Karl Rove of “Crossroads GPS”; Carl Forti, a Rove wannabe, of “Americans for Job Security”; Rupert Murdoch, Tim Phillips of “Americans for Prosperity,” and Dick Armey of “Freedomworks.” Paul Singer and others. And don’t forget the Koch brothers and Thomas Donahue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who are aggressively reaching deep into hundreds of Congressional districts, drowning out local issues, and running attack ads against Democratic candidates full of lies, falsehoods, and innuendo. Some citizens might wonder what these Republican fronts and cut-outs, stuffed to the gills with laundered cash from shadowy donors and outside groups, have to hide? Maybe with double-digit unemployment in much of the country, and decades of misguided public policy that has given us the widest gap between the rich and everyone else in history, America’s ruling elite is getting a little nervous that the Plebeians might sour on the beneficence of free markets. Today, about three hundred thousand Americans own about as much of the nation’s wealth as do 180 million of their fellow citizens. On the policy front, these civic-minded plutocrats will make sure that there’ll be deep cuts in the safety net. The Frank-Dodd Act and Obama’s health care initiative will be gutted. Like our illustrious Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, if the Republicans win Congress next week they will passionately support any measure that benefits corporations at the expense of ordinary human beings. Wouldn’t it be something if the Bin Ladens of the world funneled untraceable cash into Republican candidates’ coffers because they know they can count on the GOP to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of their greatest recruiting vehicles? The press, like the Supreme Court, insists on promoting a false equivalency between labor unions and hidden corporate donors even though corporations and their industry associations are currently outspending labor unions 25 to 1. Besides, when labor unions participate in politics the electorate knows what they want, things like higher wages, better working conditions, health care, etc. and their members are working people known in the local community. When corporate behemoths and their front groups finance attack ads against Democrats do we really know exactly what they want? Kickbacks? Pork-barrel contracts? Lax regulations? Bailouts? War? Lost in cacophony of the horse-race press coverage are the policies that the Republicans are pushing. If Americans continue to see their pensions shredded, home values diminished, tax dollars squandered on backstopping for Goldman Sachs and the boys, or thrown away on foreign wars, while their standard of living continues to plummet the time might come when the regular working people out there realize that these plutocrats can possess all the money in the world but couldn’t produce a baloney sandwich without human labor. This election cycle the corporate elites have spent more money than god railing against even the mild, market-friendly reforms President Obama got out of the Senate last year. Poor Obama. He never seemed to figure out that if your political opponents are going to denounce you as a “communist” a “fascist” and an “anti-colonial” Kenyan Mau Mau, you might as well give them something really to squawk about. They want to keep people who work two or three jobs for about $7.20 an hour with not benefits and no set working hours in their place; they want to push wages down in the United States toward the level they pay their impoverished wage-slaves abroad. The Oligarchy has kicked into high gear, exploiting the social dislocations of the Great Recession to disfranchise, pulverize, bat down, and crush the working middle class. They want to gut public institutions, take away worker pensions, and demolish the wogs’ unions and voluntary associations. In a period of Gilded Age inequality they’re hitting us hard with the assistance of George W. Bush’s Supreme Court and Karl Rove’s underhanded political chicanery. The economic meltdown that short-sighted “free market” policies brought upon us has now given the rich and powerful the opening to push their advantage more aggressively than ever. They’re the same “Economic Royalists” that FDR denounced 70 years ago, only now they’re richer, more sophisticated, vicious, and powerful.

Read the full article →

Video: Ratcliffe Says Southern in `Good Position’ Going Forward

October 27, 2010

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — David Ratcliffe, chairman and chief executive officer of Southern Co., talks about the company’s third-quarter earnings reported today. The second-largest electricity power producer in the U.S. said net income fell to $817 million, or 98 cents a share, on higher operation and maintenance costs. Ratcliffe speaks with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →