November 2010

Video: Caterpillar’s Rapp Says China `Is the Next Frontier’

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Edward Rapp, chief financial officer of Caterpillar Inc., talks about the company’s acquisition of Bucyrus International Inc., the firm’s efforts to move into the Chinese market, the business and political climate in Washington, and challenges facing Caterpillar. Rapp talks with Carol Massar at the MIT Sloan CFO Summit in Boston on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Delphi Management’s Black Recommends Boise Inc., Vale

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Scott Black, president of Delphi Management Inc., and Joe Cusick of OptionsXpress Holdings Inc., discuss the U.S. equity market and stock picks. They talk with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Delphi Management’s Black Recommends Boise Inc., Vale

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Scott Black, president of Delphi Management Inc., and Joe Cusick of OptionsXpress Holdings Inc., discuss the U.S. equity market and stock picks. They talk with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Steve Grossman Expects `More Active’ State Treasurers

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Massachusetts State Treasurer-Elect Steve Grossman talks about the outlook for his tenure in that position and the prospects for President Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012. Grossman talks with Carol Massar at the MIT Sloam CFO Summit in Boston on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Hoguet Expects `Orderly’ Resolution of Irish Debt Crisis

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — George Hoguet, global investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors, talks about the outlook for resolution of the Irish debt crisis and China’s economy. Hoguet speaks with Carol Massar at the MIT Sloan CFO Summit in Boston on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Hoguet Expects `Orderly’ Resolution of Irish Debt Crisis

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — George Hoguet, global investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors, talks about the outlook for resolution of the Irish debt crisis and China’s economy. Hoguet speaks with Carol Massar at the MIT Sloan CFO Summit in Boston on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: UAW’s King Calls General Motors IPO a `Huge Success’

November 19, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Bob King, president of the United Auto Workers union, talks about General Motors Co.’s initial public offering and the outlook for the company. King talks with Adam Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (This is an excerpt from the full interview. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Michael Maslansky: Four lessons companies can learn from the midterm elections

November 18, 2010

The morning after the mid-term elections it seemed anyone considering a run for office wouldn’t need to hire a campaign manager. Every news site, every cable news channel, and your favorite blog told us the myriad “lessons” we supposedly learned from an event less than 24 hours old. A simple Internet search would turn up everything you need to know about the political environment for your pending candidacy. The analysis runs the gamut from silly to sophisticated. But the election also yielded important lessons for companies. By studying the political conversation we’ve gained four key insights into the current national mood. Apologies to eye backers, but language is the real window to the soul. 1. Talk like you’re not from around here. The strongest trend we saw in the campaigns was toward language and imagery that implies the speaker is an “outsider.” For example, in his victory speech Wisconsin senator-elect Ron Johnson, who unseated 18-year veteran Russ Feingold, explained why “one guy from Oshkosh, a husband and a father, stepped up to the plate and decided to run for US Senate.” It was because “we’re just simple Wisconsin folks here. We know what needs to be done if you’re trying to get out of a deep hole.” Translation: insiders don’t know what needs to be done, so you picked me. This doesn’t mean computer companies should run advertisements with folksy engineers that don’t put much stock in fancy book larnin’. But you’ll want to communicate in language that shows you understand most Americans feel the traditional markers of authority aren’t credible anymore. 2. Be realer. Authenticity is always an important quality for maintaining credibility (unless you’re in the pop music business – looking at you here Lady Gaga). But authenticity can be a moving target. What Americans think of as “real” doesn’t always remain the same. In this election it seemed to center on what jobs you’ve done before running for office. Politicians seemed engaged in a contest to out-gritty each other with previous occupations. Missouri’s Robin Carnahan slopped some livestock [She lost though - need example of Dem who won]. Wisconsin’s Sean Duffy chopped wood. Again, we’re not suggesting CEOs start engaging in public displays of downhomeyness. (“Hi. I’m Warren Buffet. And every morning when I’m cleaning my outhouse…”) But messages that imply you’re rolling up your sleeves and doing real work are going to do better right now than messages which name your bona fides, e.g. “the best-selling ____ in America,” or “the oldest and most well-established ____.” 3. Taking responsibility is necessary. Even if you’re not to blame for something, if the public thinks you are, you might as well be. When President Obama talks about the deficit, he still attaches the caveat “that I inherited.” People aren’t buying it anymore. It’s not to your advantage to explain why you’re not to blame. People are fed up with passing the buck to someone else. Your lawyers might fight you on it, but it will actually work to your advantage to say “We didn’t do everything we could have done. We’ve learned from this. And here’s our plan for the future.” The public doesn’t want – or need – a set of lengthy arguments to determine fault. They want an adult to appear, accept responsibility and start moving forward. 4. The truth won’t set you free. Just because the facts are on your side doesn’t mean people will see it your way. There are more than enough facts to go around, and people will just pick the ones that fit the conclusion they feel is best. Don’t take my word for it. Just ask President Obama. Advisers of every ideological stripe assured him that the only way to save the economy was to pump stimulus money into it and prop up failing businesses. Just about every credible economic source still agrees those measures were necessary. Yet many voters now think of it as “overreaching.” What matters is how people feel about your brand, your product or your issue – not what might be true about it. This is not to say that the truth doesn’t matter, but if your audience isn’t open to hearing about your truth, a savvy communicator would be smart to find another line of communication. The bottom line: what voters want from their politicians is often the same thing consumers want from the companies with which they do business. Today, that means being a little more Homer Simpson and a little less Homer. It also means recognizing that its your consumers’ view of the world that matters most, even when that view seems illogical, irrational or just plain irrelevant.

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Gain on Manufacturing, Jobs Data, Ireland

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Deborah Kostroun reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks rallied, sending major equity benchmarks to their biggest gains in two weeks, as speculation grew that Ireland will accept a bailout to rescue indebted banks and reports on manufacturing and jobless claims bolstered optimism about the economy. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Gain on Manufacturing, Jobs Data, Ireland

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Deborah Kostroun reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks rallied, sending major equity benchmarks to their biggest gains in two weeks, as speculation grew that Ireland will accept a bailout to rescue indebted banks and reports on manufacturing and jobless claims bolstered optimism about the economy. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Jeffrey Shaffer: Lost Your Job? Get Lost!

November 18, 2010

Here’s a blunt message for millions of Americans who have lost their jobs and had no success finding a new one: You don’t have a problem; you are the problem. This lie has been promoted for years by far-right pundits and you can be sure it will get a huge popularity boost from the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. There is ample evidence of the uber-conservative propaganda blitz in print, broadcasting and on-line media. Certain catch phrases and code words pop up over and over. One of the most insidious examples I’ve noticed recently is the assertion that Franklin Roosevelt’s administration actually prolonged the Great Depression. This notion can be breezily inserted into a conversation by referring to “the failed New Deal policies.” Implicit in this line of attack is the notion that any government effort to help unemployed workers will only encourage laziness and create a cycle of dependency, a cycle which is not only un-productive for the economy but thoroughly un-American. When you read first-person accounts of the Depression, many of the recollections emphasize the embarrassment and shame workers felt after being pushed into the unemployment ranks with no job prospects anywhere in sight. To critics of the New Deal, these feelings were justified, and that attitude is now re-emerging with new enthusiasm on the far right. According to the “government is the problem” bloviators, anyone who loses their job is just that — a loser. We know that because bosses don’t fire good people, right? And if it turns out your job disappeared because the factory closed or the company shut down, well, that just proves your firm was a loser and you were a dummy to keep working there. In any case, all blame goes to the victim. People who hate the New Deal don’t like the idea of social safety nets. They see unemployment as an attitude problem with a simple solution. All it takes to succeed is to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and make it happen. Anyone who can’t do that is a disgrace to the American tradition of rugged individualism and self-reliance. Using this argument, it follows that being unemployed for a prolonged period of time can only mean you are not a real American. You’re just a dolt who wants a government bailout for your bad career choices. The best thing you can do is shut up and go off into the hills and find a cave to squat in so responsible, hardworking citizens don’t have to listen to your childish whining. The anti-New Deal crowd is all about “me first.” You can identify them instantly on radio call-in shows because they describe government aid programs as “giving my hard earned money to deadbeats” and they have no sense of being part of a community. To them, the word “community” is basically the same as “communism.” As the recession grinds on, I’m going to be on the alert for politicians or media commentators who suggest it might be time to re-evaluate the benefits of “government regulations” on things like minimum wages, overtime pay, collective bargaining rights, and other legacies of the New Deal that free-enterprise fanatics have always hated. Their logic will be the same as it’s been since the industrial revolution. If you can find a guy who’s willing to work 12 hours a day for $100 a week including Saturdays, what right does the government have to interfere with a private business arrangement? In his book The Coldest Winter author David Halberstam described the 1930s this way: “The Great Depression had revealed the deepest chasms in American society, and a profound political, economic, and social alienation had taken place.” Those chasms haven’t gone away. What troubles me even more is the number of people in this country who are relentlessly trying to make them deeper.

Read the full article →

Video: McDonnell’s Ciccarone Discusses Data on Municipal Bonds

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Richard Ciccarone, managing director at McDonnell Investment Management, talks about the timeliness of municipal bond data. He talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: MIT’s Rigobon Says Fed Doing `Right Thing’ With QE2: Video

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Roberto Rigobon, an economics professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talks about the outlook for inflation and the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. Rigobon speaks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: MIT’s Rigobon Says Fed Doing `Right Thing’ With QE2: Video

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Roberto Rigobon, an economics professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talks about the outlook for inflation and the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. Rigobon speaks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Hammond Expects `Long, Slow Slog’ for Stocks, Investors

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Brett Hammond, chief investment strategist for TIAA-CREF, talks about the outlook for the U.S. stock market, General Motors Co.’s initial public offering and the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. Hammond talks with Julie Hyman on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Obama: GM IPO Proves Government Made The Right ‘Tough Decisions’ On Rescue

November 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday celebrated the return of a reborn General Motors to the U.S. stock market, saying it shows some of the “tough decisions that we made” during the financial crisis were beginning to pay off. “American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM, and that’s a good thing,” Obama said. The government’s $50 billion taxpayer-backed rescue of the venerable automaker includes more than $36 billion injected by the Obama administration and more than $13 billion approved by Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush. Trading the new stock is a milestone for both the corporation and for the Obama administration. The stock rose sharply at first, rising to nearly $36 per share from the $33 price GM set for the initial public offering before pulling back and closing at $34.19. The trading – more than 400 million GM shares traded hands during its debut on the Big Board – helped reduce the federal government’s stake in the company from 61 percent to about 36 percent. For the U.S. to break even on its investment, it must sell its remaining stake for about $50 a share. Obama said estimates indicate that actions by his administration helped save more than 1 million jobs across 50 states. The Center for Automotive Research estimated that aid to GM and Chrysler saved more than 1.1 million jobs in 2009 and 314,000 jobs this year. The third Big Three automaker, Ford Motor Co., did not accept federal assistance and stayed out of bankruptcy. With it’s first day of trading, the once near-death automaker “took another big step toward becoming a success story,” Obama said. Obama said the revitalized GM proved that “doubters and naysayers” were wrong. “We are finally beginning to see some of these tough decisions that we made in the midst of the crisis pay off,” the president said. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, in line to become the House speaker in January, avoided a direct answer when he was asked whether the government’s treatment of General Motors had saved any jobs. He said he had favored allowing GM to go through bankruptcy, and said the episode “could have been handled without the heavy hand of the federal government in the midst of it.” He said tens of thousands of people were punished as a result of the process that was used. Rep. Dale E. Kildee, D-Mich., co-chairman of the Congressional Automotive Caucus, said the company’s strong IPO performance shows that government loans were “a smart investment of taxpayer money” that saved jobs and that GM was well on its way back to productivity and profitability. Those who held old GM stock were essentially wiped out when the company filed for bankruptcy.

Read the full article →

Will Ferrell Loses Lawsuit Against JPMorgan, Slapped With $600,000 Penalty

November 18, 2010

Will Ferrell lost a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and now has to pay a big legal fee, NYT ‘s DealBook reports. The suit , which the actor filed in 2008 with his wife and a business manager, and with fellow funnyman Larry David’s trust, claimed the bank had “engaged in the unauthorized and unsuitable purchases” of $18 million of securities in the accounts of two “unnamed” parties. A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel not only ruled against Ferrell and the others but also decided they have to pay JPMorgan $600,000 to cover legal fees, and an additional $22,500 for “discovery abuse” and not following legal rules during the case. The NYT and the Wall Street Journal say this sort of penalty on investors is highly unusual. “It’s about time,” Jonathan Uretsky, a securities lawyer, told the WSJ . “I think this should happen more often.” Read the ruling: Finra Ruling Against Will Ferrell and Others

Read the full article →

Video: Schweitzer Says Montana Drug Plan Will Save U.S. $96 Mln: Video

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, talks about his plan to cut the state’s Medicaid costs. Schweitzer also discusses Montana’s budget and the U.S. health-care system. He talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Schweitzer Says Montana Drug Plan Will Save U.S. $96 Mln: Video

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, talks about his plan to cut the state’s Medicaid costs. Schweitzer also discusses Montana’s budget and the U.S. health-care system. He talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Magliano Says U.S. Auto Industry Now on `Solid Footing’: Video

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — George Magliano, director of North American research for IHS Automotive, talks about General Motors Co.’s initial public offering that raised more than $20 billion and the outlook for the company and the U.S. auto industry. Magliano talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Todd A. Solomon: Results of HRC’s 2011 Corporate Equality Index Show Employers’ Strong Commitment to Workplace Equality for LGBT Employees

November 18, 2010

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation (“HRC”) recently released the results of its 2011 Corporate Equality Index. The Index is the HRC’s nationally-recognized ranking of large employers throughout the United States on workplace equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals. Employers listed in Fortune magazine’s 1,000 largest publicly-traded businesses, American Lawyer magazine’s top 200 revenue-grossing law firms, and Forbes magazine’s 200 largest private businesses are invited to participate in the annual survey. In addition, any private sector, for-profit employer with 500 or more full time employees in the United States can request to participate. Employers are surveyed for the Index on a series of criteria that demonstrate the employer’s commitment to equal treatment of all people regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. To score highly on the 2011 Index, employers had to offer same-sex partners of employees and their legal dependents medical, dental and vision insurance coverage as well as COBRA-equivalent continuation coverage. In addition, employers had to offer at least three of the following benefits to employees’ same-sex partners: leave equivalent to that provided under the Family Medical Leave Act, bereavement leave, employer-provided supplemental life insurance, relocation/travel assistance, adoption assistance, qualified joint and survivor annuities, qualified pre-retirement survivor annuities, retiree healthcare benefits or employee discounts. The results of the 2011 Index show that an increasing number of employers are taking action to ensure that LGBT employees and their partners are treated equally in the workplace. When the Index was first introduced in 2002, only 13 of the 319 employers surveyed received a perfect 100 score. The 2011 Index evaluated 616 employers, 337 of whom received a perfect rating. Over half of the 263 Fortune 500-ranked employers evaluated on the 2011 Index scored a perfect rating. Employers that receive a perfect rating on the Index are recognized by the HRC as one of the “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality” and are encouraged to use this distinction in their recruitment and marketing efforts. The results of the 2011 Index reflect the significant impact that changing attitudes and strong commitments to equality are having on the lives of LGBT individuals. For example, 99% of the employers evaluated in 2011 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing important protections that are not provided under federal law to over 15 million employees. 95 percent of the employers evaluated provide health coverage to same-sex partners of employees, giving over 14 million employees access to vital medical benefits for their partners and families. Although the 2011 Index reflects great progress in advancing workplace equality for LGBT individuals, it also reveals where change continues to be needed. For example, although 99 percent of the employers surveyed prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, only 76 percent extend that protection to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In addition, although 79 percent of the employers surveyed provide at least one type of health benefit to transgender employees, 65 percent of those employers do not provide coverage for medical services or treatments relating to gender transition. In order to continue raising the bar on the comprehensive benefits and inclusive employment practices and policies that employers must implement in order to ensure LGBT individuals are treated equally, the HRC periodically updates the criteria on which employers are evaluated for the annual Index. The next update will be to the criteria used for the 2012 Index, which will stress comprehensive employee benefits for same-sex spouses and partners, transgender-inclusive medical and short-term disability benefits, organizational competency on LGBT issues and public engagement with the LGBT community.

Read the full article →

Smart Card Alliance Board Members and Executive Leadership Announced for 2011

November 18, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC–(Marketwire – November 18, 2010) – 9 th Annual Smart Cards in Government Conference —  The Smart Card Alliance today announced its 2010-2011 board and seven-member executive committee. Elections were held during the 9th Annual Smart Cards in Government: Identity, Security & Healthcare Conference , taking place this week through November 19 th at the Washington DC Convention Center. 

Read the full article →

Douglas M. Branson: Women CEOs in the Fortune 500 — A Single Step Forward, Four Steps Back

November 18, 2010

My book, The Last Male Bastion – Gender and the CEO Suite at America’s Public Companies (Routledge 2010), appeared just last March. The book featured profiles of the 21 women who actually have reached the corner officer at large U.S. public companies, including references to the 22nd (Ursula Burns at Xerox). Ms. Burns took office after the manuscript had gone to print. There have been several twists and turns since that time, with the overall effect being a distinct setback. The total number of women CEOs has fallen, from 15, or 3% of the Fortune 500, which represented the high point, to 12, then in September back up to 13, then most recently back to 12, or 2.4%, where it now rests. When in 2009 Ursula Burns took office it was a historic moment, not because the number of women in office had reached a new high. It hadn’t: Burns replaced another woman, Anne Mulcahy, who had been Xerox’s CEO since 2002. The female CEO number stayed at 15. What was historic was that Ms. Burns became our first African American woman CEO. Very rapidly, though, three women CEOs resigned their positions. Mary Sammons, CEO of Rite Aid, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, resigned, perhaps be she was tired. Once a high flier in the 1990s stock market, Rite Aid has fallen further and further behind the industry leaders, CVS and Walgreens. For a time the stock has flirted with a price under $1.00, which could mean delisting from the New York Stock Exchange. Sammons and her team seemed never able to pull the company out of its tail spin. Christina Gold, CEO of Western Union, re-located to outside Denver, stepped down later this spring. She simply retired. Then, in early summer came word that Brenda Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, herself a widely publicized corporate CEO, had a severe stroke in her mid-50s. In June she took a leave of absence, followed in August by her resignation. Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts (KKR), the buyout firm has expressed interest in acquiring Sara Lee and taking the company private but, initially at least, Sara Lee’s management rejected the overtures. So, quite rapidly, the number of women CEOs had dropped from 15 to 12. The number rebounded slightly in late September when Campbell’s Soup, of Camden, New Jersey, announced the selection of Denise Morrison as CEO, succeeding Douglas R. Conant. Ms. Morrison is a food industry veteran, who rose through jobs at Proctor & Gamble, Pepsico, Nestle S.A., Nabisco, and Kraft Foods, before joining Campbell’s. She also evidences a common pattern of women who have made it to the top. They side stepped from one company to another, often several times in their careers, before they reached senior management. Only Anne Mulcahy at Xerox and Susan Ivey at Reynolds America are female CEOs who spent most all of their careers with a single company. The number of women on corporate boards of directors in the U.S. has been basically flat for 5 years now, according to Catalyst, the leading women’s advocacy organization. Catalyst, too, inflates the number, counting the number of directorships which are held by women as the number of female directors. The latter number is significantly less, as numbers of women, many of them prominent, allow themselves to be token, or corporate governance ornaments, serving on 4, 5, 6 or 7 corporate boards. The number of women trophy directors has rapidly increased as of late whereas the species has all but disappeared among men. Then, most recently, in late October, 2010, Susan Ivey at Reynolds America announced her retirement from the CEO position. Her stepping down is quite confounding, as she is only 51 and her leadership at RAI has been unparalleled. She led the company into smokeless tobacco, where future growth will be. She resurrected defunct premium brands, marketing them with premium panache but non-premium prices. The stock’s price hovers near an all-time high and the dividends are robust, to say the least. So, in the immediate year almost past, we have had one new appointment (Morrison) and four resignations (Sammons, Gold, Barnes and Ivey); one step forward, four steps back.

Read the full article →

Andrew J. Pease Promoted to President and Chief Executive Officer of QuickLogic Corporation

November 18, 2010

SUNNYVALE, CA–(Marketwire – November 18, 2010) – The Board of Directors of QuickLogic Corporation ( NASDAQ : QUIK ), the lowest power Customer Specific Standard Products ( CSSP s) leader, announced today that as part of its ongoing succession planning process, Andrew J. Pease will be promoted to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of QuickLogic, effective January 3, 2011. At that time, E. Thomas Hart will assume the new role of Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors.

Read the full article →

Lawrence G. McDonald: It’s Securitization Stupid: One Big Fix Needed in our Banking System

November 18, 2010

I remember it like yesterday, it was the Autumn of 2006. I was on the Lehman Brothers trading floor where I traded distressed debt, bonds of companies in trouble. One of the brightest analysts in the firm came up to me with an interesting piece of data. He showed me a chart of “shadow banks” going out of business. I remember doing a double take and then looking at the data long and hard. To explain, here’s an excerpt from my 2009 New York Times Best Selling book, A Colossal Failure of Common Sense — The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers : The process began in the offices of large US mortgage brokers, particularly in California, Florida, and Nevada, where the prospect of a fast buck has never antagonized the natives. This was the start of a lending twilight zone, the advance of the Shadow Banks, places with no depositors, no customers filing in and handing over their paychecks to carefully run commercial banking organizations. The Shadow Banks would lend, finance, and provide capital for house purchases, but they had to borrow the money in the first place, from proper banks, mainly because they didn’t have the money themselves. Presto! We have a lender who’s not really the lender, a lender who had to borrow the money in order to make the loan. Huh? All over the United States companies like Own It Mortgage, New Century (NCBC), and NovaStar were dropping like flies. What does this mean to you, financial reform in the Dodd Frank Bill, our economy, and the Federal Reserve today? The math is simple, since the Fall of 2006 more than 380 of these shadow banks have gone out of business. The big ones like New Century and BNC/Aurora Mortgage (owned by my former employer Lehman Brothers) were lending close to $5 billion a month of Subprime and Alt-A mortgages. $5 billion times 380 now-defunct shadow banks would be $1.9 trillion a month of lending power, which doesn’t exist today. But not all shadow banks were lending at this insane pace. The average was more like $600 million times 380 now-defunct shadow banks, which equals $228 billion a month, or $2.7 trillion of annual US lending power, which does not exist today. There were more than 500,000 mortgage brokers in California alone; now that’s a distribution system! You must thoroughly understand this 21st century lending power. This isn’t some government-sponsored Highway Works Project or some stimulus money the Obama administration and Congress are throwing at the economy to try to get things cooking again. This money doesn’t go through the hands of a million bureaucrats and eventually end up in the US economy. This lending power was like taking a syringe filled with liquid cocaine and placing it right into the jugular vein of the US economy. I stress the word was. Most economists didn’t understand the multiplier effect of the securitization process described above in 2006; they called it “Goldilocks” out of ignorance and they still don’t understand it today. The multiplier effect of this amount of capital oozing through our economy is and was nothing short of jaw-dropping. Every time someone buys a home in America hundreds of jobs are created. Carpets, appliances, electronics, cement, and wood. It goes on and on, money is spent and the money gets spent over and over again in the economy. Which brings me to quantitative easing, the now infamous QE1 and QE2. Our Federal Reserve is taking almost $2 trillion and buying US Treasury securities to suppress interest rates, create cheap money in the hope US consumers get out and spend. The problem is this is like giving an ill patient a colossal blood transfusion with veins running through the body that are completely clogged. They’re flooding the engine with gas with no spark plugs. I’ve delivered more than 35 keynote speeches this year in more than 15 countries on the failure of Lehman Brothers and financial reform. I’ve had one-on-one meetings with people like Charlie Munger and I’ve been advising the financial crisis inquiry commission. I’ve been working with the team at DC Tripwire to stay up-to-date on all the latest moves coming out of Washington on financial reform and the long implementation process of the Dodd Frank Bill. I consider myself an expert on this subject. I’m here to tell you I’m disgusted with the fact that very little has been done to fix our critical securitization process. I say critical because it needs to be fixed as soon as possible. In commercial real estate there was more than $260 billion of securitized lending in 2007 versus less than $10 billion this year. Imagine the jobs and lives this is impacting. The most appalling focus point I see is the Dodd Frank Financial Reform implementation process has securitization on the back burner, I mean the left field or Siberian-type of back burner. It’s the last priority. To understand Dodd Frank, picture in your mind an eight-lane highway with some cars moving at 90 mph, some 50 mph. Securitization reform is more like 15 mph. Take residential mortgage-backed securities, for example RMBS. Where’s the system of registering mortgage brokers? Stock brokers and financial advisers have a rigorous registration and regulation infrastructure known as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority FINRA but we still have nothing in mortgage origination. There’s a buyer’s strike right now in securitization of mortgage-backed securities. Investors around the world who once flocked to mortgage-backed securities like drug addicts chasing their dealer aren’t buying because they don’t trust the origination process at the street level. This must be fixed before another round of quantitative easing or we get another stimulus package out of Washington. We’re in a row boat and Congress has the oars going one way and the Fed the other, let’s right this ship!

Read the full article →

ForceLogix Enters Into Services Contract With Privately Held Company to Sell and Market ForceLogix Software and Board of Directors Announces Resignation of CFO

November 18, 2010

CHICAGO, IL–(Marketwire – November 18, 2010) –  The Board of Directors of ForceLogix Technologies Inc. ( TSX-V : FLT ) announced today that they have entered into a services contract with a privately a held company engaged to sell and market ForceLogix software. This strategy will allow ForceLogix to reduce overhead for the company while enhancing services and software for its customers. 

Read the full article →

ChaCha Hires Greg Siefert as Chief Technology Officer

November 18, 2010

INDIANAPOLIS, IN–(Marketwire – November 18, 2010) – ChaCha, the #1 free real-time answers service, has hired Greg Siefert to be its Chief Technology Officer. 

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: GM IPO Continues Trend of Rewarding Those Who Failed

November 18, 2010

What do the General Motors and the nation’s big banks have in common? They’ve both been bailed out by the federal government and, were it not for government largess, neither would be here today celebrating the automaker’s largely successful stock offering. It’s an irony that has escaped most of the media amid all the hoopla over GM’s “initial public offering,” which is an odd way to describe what is happening now regarding GM’s return to the public markets. IPOs, of course, are usually reserved for relatively new companies that have created new products or services in such a way that investors see promise in their future. GM, on the other hand, is a washed up maker or inferior cars. Its laundry list of problems — from failing to compete with Japanese brands to a bloated work force — pushed the company into bankruptcy in 2009, from which it emerged only after a $50 billion bailout from the government. Thanks to yesterday’s stock sale, GM is about 2/3 the way through paying back the money it owes the taxpayer. The rest is expected to be paid back over the next few years. So far, it’s unclear if the taxpayers will benefit from any of this; now stripped of many of its liabilities and flush with government handouts, GM is marginally profitable again. The stock opened at a healthy $33 a share (it “popped” on the opening a couple bucks before coming down a bit in price). But some analysts say it will have to double in value over the next year or so for the taxpayer to be made whole. While it’s unclear whether taxpayers will make money out the GM fiasco, it’s pretty clear Wall Street already has. Yesterday’s rally in the stock market was attributed to strong demand for the IPO of a company designated Too Big To Fail. Traders who managed to get their hands on the new GM shares were “flipping” them or selling them sometime after the market opened, which is why the price shot up at the opening before settling down as investors took profits on the initial run up. Even worse were the fees raked in by the big Wall Street firms that underwrote the stock issue. Let’s not forget that GM has company on the government’s Too Big To Fail list, and it’s the big Wall Street firms like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, the top underwriters of the deal. Combined, the banks received $135 billion in bailout money during the 2008 financial crisis, and that doesn’t consider the countless billions they received through guarantees and other subsidies over the past two years. They are said to split a little under $120 million in fees, which we are all told is low compared to some other corporate deals. Recently some people at the Wall Street firms have complained not just about the relatively low fees but also about the fact that they had to split those fees with several minority-owned firms, which also have positions in the underwriting group. These outfits, of course, received a much smaller portion of the deal, so they made less money than the big firms. But executives at the large banks noted that many of the minority firms and their executives have made political donations to President Obama, which given the government’s ownership stake in the company, accounted for their presence on the deal. Give me a break. The saddest part about this nonsense is that it actually made its way into the deal’s coverage by a financial news television station (hint: it’s not the one I now work for now). Why is it such nonsense? Aside from the fact that many of GMs’ employees are in fact minorities, that all of the big firms in the main underwriting group were also big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign (for more on this check out my new book Bought and Paid for ), or that in just one example of political cronyism, Tom Nides, the No. 2 executive at lead underwriter Morgan Stanley has been appointed for a top position in the Obama White House, not one minority-owned firm needed a bailout in 2008. In other words, maybe it should be the minority-owned firms running the deal instead of the likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs?

Read the full article →

Video: RBC’s Gero Says Buy Commodities on the `Pullbacks’

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — George Gero, senior vice president at RBC Capital Markets, discusses gold prices and the outlook for the precious-metals market. Gero speaks from Chicago with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: RBC’s Gero Says Buy Commodities on the `Pullbacks’

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — George Gero, senior vice president at RBC Capital Markets, discusses gold prices and the outlook for the precious-metals market. Gero speaks from Chicago with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Raymond Baker: The Rut in India’s Economic Highway

November 18, 2010

Writing about India’s booming economic performance and growth potential has become its own cottage industry over the last several years. Indeed, a report out this week predicts that India will become the world’s fastest growing economy by 2012 and, by 2030, will likely be the globe’s third largest economy behind China and the United States. From its educated work force to its embrace of technology and the likelihood it will be among the leaders in developing “green” businesses, it appears that India – other than the Commonwealth Games – can do no wrong. But the rosy picture has a dark underside that must be addressed if India’s stagnant income inequality levels are to be overcome. A new study of the magnitude of illicit capital outflows shows that close to one half trillion dollars have been siphoned out of the Indian economy since independence in 1948. This shocking figure is coupled with an equally alarming estimated annual growth rate of 16.4 percent. In the most recent years examined, India lost an average of $16 billion per year (2002 – 2006). The report, “The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008,” by Global Financial Integrity a Washington, DC-based research and advocacy group, also notes that as the economy has improved, the amount of illicit money shifted to offshore financial centers has increased as well. Wealthy individuals and private companies “were the primary drivers” of illicit capital flight, the study finds. Moreover, those private companies, and no doubt some publicly-held firms too, mispriced goods in order to funnel money out of the country. In the last five years for which data are available (2004 – 2008) approximately US $89 billion in trade was mispriced. A key driver of these illicit flows was that government oversight did not keep pace with deregulation of the market. “Trade liberalization,” the report notes “merely provided more opportunities [for] companies to misinvoice trade, lending support to the contention that economic reform and liberalization need to be dovetailed with strengthened institutions and governance if governments are to curtail capital flight.” The simple truth is that a rising tide does not lift all boats. Despite India’s tremendous economic growth, this has not translated into an equal amount of poverty alleviation. While there has been progress in its Human Development Index score – which is an examination of health, education, and income levels conducted annually by the UN Development Program – over the last 30 years, the country still ranks 119 out of 169 nations. The rich in India, as the saying goes, get richer and many of the rest just muddle along. This is a pity given the country’s vast potential to help more people out of poverty. The remedy is not technically difficult, but it requires political will which, sometimes, is a difficult commodity to find. A closer examination of trade pricing by the government would curtail a tremendous amount of money from leaving the country, but there is little indication the authorities acknowledge the problem. India has signed the UN Convention Against Corruption but has not ratified it, nor, as the most recent G20 communiqué urges of its members, “effectively implemented” its provisions. There is a global component to the solution as well. The G20 must push for tax evasion to be just cause for charging someone with money laundering , which would cause many individuals and companies to think twice about avoiding the tax. Further, an international standard requiring that beneficial ownership of companies, charities and trusts be known by government authorities would create another hurdle for those wishing to hide money in shady places behind a veil of secrecy. What must not happen is for the Indian government to rest on the notion of asset recovery as its first line of defense. This is a noble effort but, as history has shown, one which is has not been met with a great amount of success. Once money leaves an economy, it rarely returns. The poor deserve a better answer to the question “when will our turn come?” than the current government response of, “we’ll catch up to your money after it’s gone.”

Read the full article →

Tim Hanni: A Challenge to the Wine Industry

November 18, 2010

There are many positive factors that have parlayed wine into the adult beverage most associated with good taste, sophistication and style. Wine quality, at all price levels, has improved dramatically. The range of wine types and styles available today is complete enough to satisfy every possible consumer preference and pocketbook. Indeed one of the challenges consumers face is how to confidently drill into the overwhelming number of choices and find wines they will love. An equally dizzying number of choices exist with wine classes, educational initiatives and the availability of wine evaluations and information. The birth and expansion of social media, blogs and on line wine communities ranging from eRobert Parker, Jancis Robinson and Snooth have provided and explosion of connectivity and the ability to share points of view. To top it all off there are new generations of wine heroes and evangelists like Gary Vaynerchuk, Joe Roberts, Jeff Lefevere, Alder Yarrow and many, many others that millions of consumers and professionals alike tune into every day. Yep, there is plenty of wine information and interaction available. This being said I am struck by how often the same issues and obstacles to expanding wine consumption seem to arise over and over again. So let’s take a look at the progress that has been made over the past 10 years. The following quote appeared in Brand Week a decade ago and at the center of discussion in many wine industry circles as a call to action: “The fragmented, historically insular (wine) industry generally seems resigned to accepting the wine consumer pool as is rather than aggressively pursuing new markets… the next decade could easily be referred to by future wine historians as the “years of missed opportunity.” Brand Week, May 1, 2000 10 Years After So what does the wine landscape look like 10 years after Brand Week’s prediction that “the next decade could easily be referred to as the ‘years of missed 0pportunity’”? “The wine industry is guilty of going out of its way to confuse the consumer, and must urgently come up with ‘a new big idea’, according to a British advertising heavyweight…’The wine industry is the most fragmented market I’ve seen. Fragmented, confusing, impenetrable.’” Sir John Hegarty, June 28, 2010, Masters of Wine International Symposium, Bordeaux, France Hmmm. Sounds pretty familiar. What is it that keeps us stuck in this deeply etched rut carved into the path of wine enjoyment and appreciation? I am convinced that it is a combination of complacency, misinformation and stubbornness in the wine industry. It is an unwillingness to adapt and change that is preventing us from having a larger consumer base and compromising our long-term fiscal stability and health. Despite ample evidence that the wine industry would be well served by becoming more consumer-focused, simplifying our messages and improving OUR ability to communicate our mantra remains the same, “we must better educate consumers, move them up to better wine.” This is nothing new about the wine industry mission to educate consumers and there is also nothing wrong with the idea. Ditto for the idea of moving them up to better wine. Perhaps what we really need is another strategy to run concurrently. We seem to be keeping something in place that is not working for a really large portion of the market and then we wonder why we are not making more sustainable progress in removing the overwhelm and intimidation as evidenced in every wine consumer study ever conducted. This quote about the Project Genome consumer study taken from Wines & Vines in 2008, “With the highest percentage of consumers falling into the “Overwhelmed” category, Leslie Joseph, Constellation’s vice president of consumer research affairs, commented: ‘We need to do a better job as an industry of helping these people understand what a wine’s going to taste like.” And the following is from the UK site WINEOPTIONS.COM illustrating this phenomenon is present on a global scale. “WineOption.org feels the wine trade has traditionally placed its focus on connoisseurs and wine snobs rather than the much greater number of unpretentious people who enjoy wine. Many producers, retailers and wine writers have traditionally taken much of the potential enjoyment out of wine drinking by shrouding the subject with myth, snobbery, and arcane or pretentious language. This facade has been, and in some quarters remains, a convenient means of confusing or even intimidating wine shoppers into making purchase decisions much less helpfully informed than is the case with most other foods and beverages. In fact, it is perfectly possible to provide in relatively simple day to day language the basic information which most wine drinkers need and want to select any given wine.” I think that it is high time we look in the mirror and ask ourselves, “What are we missing that keeps a vast majority of consumers (and many of us professionals who are able to admit it) confused, mystified and intimidated?” The answer as I see it is to turn the tables and start newly educating ourselves and cleaning up a lot of the tired clichés and misinformation that is disseminated under the pretense of “wine education”. I am not implying that we stop wine education per se, just that we enforce a greater rigor in the information we dispense and come up with alternative solutions for the huge market segment that is further disenfranchised by our narrow, product-based and self-serving approach. The call to action is not to change anything about the many things we are doing right as an industry, it is a call to action so we can collectively discover what we may be missing that would add immeasurably to our continued growth and success. I love this quote: “To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.” Tony Robbins What would it look like if the wine industry and wine communities to on the mission to understand, embrace and cultivate ALL wine consumers, not just the over-saturated segment we narrowly define as ‘worthy’? What if our next educational initiative were internal and focused on learning more about consumers and discovering more about who likes what and why? I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!

Read the full article →

Unemployment Extension Defeated In House

November 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a measure that would have reauthorized extended unemployment insurance for another three months, leaving no clear path forward to prevent the benefits from lapsing as scheduled on Nov. 30. Without a reauthorization, the Labor Department estimates that two million long-term unemployed will prematurely stop receiving benefits before the end of the year. “I think it’s a sad moment,” said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) after the vote. “It appalls me that the Republicans keep pitching and pitching and pitching the tax cuts for the rich and won’t join in a bill to help people keep their homes and not have to live in their cars.” The bill was brought to the floor under a “suspension of the rules,” meaning it required approval from two-thirds of the House. It failed 258 to 154, with mostly Democratic support. Twenty-one Republicans voted in favor and 11 Democrats voted nay. Even if it had passed the House, it’s unclear how it would get through the Senate, where Democrats will need at least three Republicans to switch sides. No GOP moderates have signaled a willingness to support an unemployment reauthorization that isn’t “paid for” with spending cuts — something Democrats have refused to do all year. In most recessions, the cost of federally-funded jobless aid is usually paid for with deficit spending. It’s likely there will be another effort in Congress to reauthorize the benefits before the Christmas break, though lawmakers will be off next week for Thanksgiving. “My understanding is the Senate is trying figure out what vehicle they can add it to and how they can include and we’ll see, but I don’t think we should be going home over the holidays when people are losing their unemployment benefits, and especially when the struggle seems to be how you can give more money to rich people,” Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor committee, told HuffPost. Democrats may attempt to attach a reauthorization of the extended benefits to a broader bill, such as a measure reauthorizing some of the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. Advocates for the unemployed want a bill that preserves existing benefits for the entirety of 2011. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday said Congress ought to reauthorize the benefits before its Christmas break. “When we discuss how to get our economy moving again, there isn’t an economist in the country who won’t tell you that ensuring [that] those who lost their jobs have the ability to pay their rent, support their families, isn’t in and of itself a great boost to the economy,” he said. I do not think that we want to leave here having fought for tax cuts for millionaires and against… unemployment insurance for those who lost their jobs.” Federally-funded extended benefits, which give the unemployed up to 73 weeks of benefits once they exhaust 26 weeks of state benefits, have needed several reauthorizations in the past year, and Congress has let them lapse three times. The shorter lapses didn’t cause too much of an interruption in benefits, but over the summer, as Senate Republicans filibustered a reauthorization for 50 days, 2.5 million people stopped receiving checks for several weeks. “Sadly, Congress is once again heading out of town just as the federal unemployment insurance programs are slated to expire, this time right as the holiday season begins,” said Christine Owens, director of the National Employment Law Project, in a statement. “It is critical that a full-year renewal of the program moves to the top of the agenda when Congress returns on November 29th, to minimize the hardship and disruption to families and the economy that will result from the November 30th cut-off.” Sam Stein contributed reporting.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Treasury Admits It Hasn’t Fined Banks For Failing To Modify Mortgages

November 18, 2010

A top Treasury department official said Thursday that the government has still not imposed any fines on banks that do not comply with the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program. In testimony before a House Financial Services subcommittee, Phyllis Caldwell, chief of Treasury’s Homeownership Preservation Office, said her department has pursued “non-monetary remedies” but has not actually imposed any fines on banks for not complying with the administration’s flagship $50 billion foreclosure prevention program. Even in the midst of a growing controversy over allegedly fraudulent foreclosure paperwork, Treasury has not imposed any penalties on banks. By many estimates, the Home Affordable Modification Program, which was launched last year, has been a failure. Although about 1.5 million borrowers were encouraged to sign up during its first year, 40 percent of those were kicked out of the program after initiating “trial” modifications, HuffPost’s Shahien Nasiripour and Arthur Delaney reported. The program was intended to help up to 4 million homeowners avoid foreclosure. In his latest report to Congress, the special inspector general for TARP Neil Barofsky said the mortgage-modification program can actually cause borrowers to go into foreclosure, due to extra fees that can accumulate on modified loans. The Government Accountability Office reported in March and in June not only that Treasury has not levied any fines on mortgage companies, but also that it hasn’t even finalized guidelines for doing so. After bank officials admitted that they had employed people who approved foreclosure documents without reading them, big banks including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America last month temporarily halted their foreclosures. A Federal task force is investigating whether there has been criminal activity in the mortgage industry, and Bank of America faces a Federal racketeering lawsuit over its allegedly shoddy paperwork. Still, Treasury has not yet punished these banks in any significant way. “To date we have not gone back to take back incentives that have already been paid, but we have pursued many of the non-monetary remedies, including further actions and evaluations, and re-evaluations,” Caldwell told Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), chair of the subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, after Waters repeatedly asked her if she had “levied any penalties or sanctions.” Caldwell emphasized that her department has required mortgage servicers, the companies that collect mortgage payments, to alter the way they carry out the HAMP process. But Waters was not impressed. “You’ve required them to do some things. You’ve asked them to change some of their procedures, et cetera,” Waters said. “There have been no monetary penalties, from what I’m hearing from you.” Lawmakers criticized the mortgage-modification program throughout the hearing, with none of them coming to Treasury’s defense. WATCH below:

Read the full article →

Jean Ann Fox: For the Banks, the Money Is in Overdraft Fees

November 18, 2010

Have you received one of those letters from your bank strongly suggesting that you need to opt-in to overdraft “protection”? I put protection in quotes, because what the banks offer isn’t really any protection at all. Rather, it’s a license to take your hard-earned money through expensive fees, sometimes through no fault of your own. In the aggregate, fee-based overdraft programs cost consumers at least $23.7 billion each year — more than the loans extended in exchange for those fees, which amount to $21.3 billion. Debit card transactions, the most common triggers of overdraft fees, cause an average overdraft of under $17, yet trigger an average fee of $34. And this fee — twice the size of the loan itself — provides the account holder no benefit of avoiding an expensive denied transaction because the cost of a denied debit card transaction is zero. The FDIC’s recent study of overdraft programs found that account holders who overdrew their accounts five or more times per year paid 93 percent of all overdraft fees. It also found that consumers living in lower-income areas bear the brunt of these fees. Seniors, young adults, military families, and the unemployed are also hit particularly hard. Older Americans aged 55 and over pay $6.2 billion in total overdraft fees annually — $2.5 billion for debit card/ATM transactions alone — and those heavily dependent on Social Security pay $1.4 billion annually. What you may not know, is that according to a Consumer Federation of America study conducted last spring, almost all of the largest banks process payments largest first, which significantly increases fees for low-balance customers. Paying largest transactions first causes substantial consumer injury, racking up multiple fees when a single large payment exhausts available funds. Consumers can’t reasonably avoid this problem since account holders have no control over the order in which transactions are presented or institutions clear transactions. And, despite the banks’ claims to the contrary, the injury is not outweighed by the countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Banks with fee-based overdraft programs pay the bulk of all transactions, so arguing that consumers benefit from high-to-low processing order is disingenuous. Banks make vague disclosures about processing order and do not compete on the basis of paying the most transactions possible from available funds. Processing transactions in order from high to low is a revenue enhancer, not a consumer service. Beyond clearing transactions from high to low, banks can further maximize fees through the order in which they clear different transaction types (debit card, checks, etc.). A federal court recently found in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo that the bank had changed its procedure to process all withdrawals together, rather than paying all (typically smaller) debit card transactions before all (typically larger) checks, to maximize fees. The court in that case ordered Wells Fargo to pay over $200 million to its California customers alone in reimbursement for fees caused solely by transaction reordering. The court noted, “the only motives behind the challenged practices [high to low processing and authorizing debit card overdrafts] were gouging and profiteering” and high to low processing is: …a trap — a trap that would escalate a single overdraft into as many as ten through the gimmick of processing in descending order. It then exploited that trap with a vengeance, racking up hundreds of millions off the backs of the working poor, students and others without the luxury of ample account balances. Regulators like the FDIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve are finally starting to look at the problems of overdrafts and to take action to rein them in. The FDIC’s recently proposed guidance to the banks it regulates marks a significant step forward in this area. The guidance notes that the agency expects banks to avoid maximizing overdrafts through clearing order and provides two examples of appropriate procedures: clearing items in the order received or by check order. The Federal Reserve Board should take prompt action to stop banks from manipulating payment order to drive up overdraft fees.  Come July 21, 2011, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be up and running, and will be able to rein in these unfair practices.  In the meanwhile, in a recent letter, we urged the OCC to put a stop to this “gouging and profiteering” by national banks immediately by making clear that banks should not 1) process transactions in order from high to low, within a single transaction type or across all transaction types; or 2) process debit card and ATM transactions before other transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees for account holders who are not enrolled in fee-based overdraft for debit card and ATM transactions; or 3) otherwise post transactions in an order that maximizes fees. Willie Sutton is credited with saying that he robbed banks because that’s where the money is. Banks know where the money is, too: overdraft fees. Banks seem to have decided to process payments in the order that best suits them because that’s where the money is — for them. We call on bank regulators to rein in this unfair and fee-maximizing practice immediately.

Read the full article →

Eric Alterman: Think Again: When Money Talks, Who Listens (Besides Politicians)?

November 18, 2010

Everybody knows money talks in politics, but people–and particularly the press–rarely pay attention to exactly how. It can define potential alternatives, invent arguments, inundate with propaganda, and threaten with merely hypothetical opposition. Politicians do not need to “switch” their votes to meet its demands. They can bury bills, rewrite the language of bills that are presented, convince certain congressmen to schedule a golf tournament back home on a day of a key committee vote, confuse debate, and bankroll primary opposition. The manner and means through which money can operate is almost as infinite as its uses in any bordello, casino, or Wall Street brokerage. Just about the only thing money can’t buy in politics is love. But that’s OK because, as Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) or ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer can tell you, politics provides plenty of substitutes. Frank Baumgartner, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and co-author of the book, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why , explains that the real outcome of most lobbying–in fact, its greatest success–is the achievement of nothing, the maintenance of the status quo: “Sixty percent of the time, nothing happens… What we see is gridlock and successful stalemating of proposals, with occasional breakthroughs.” And that’s just the way the corporate lobbies want it. Health insurers, including United Health Group Inc. and Cigna, last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health care overhaul law, according to a November 17, 2010 report by Bloomberg News. The report notes that this amount “exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 spending.” It might have been nice to know this during the fight over the bill–when so many members of the mainstream media were pretending that all the opposition to it was based on genuine voter outrage, but it only became public when annual tax records required under U.S. law were finally made public. The insurers’ funneling of money through the chamber is an example of some of the new business opportunities that recent Supreme Court rulings have opened up for all wealthy and corporate funders who wish to remain anonymous. To keep reading, please go here

Read the full article →

Manisha Thakor : 4 Ways Healthcare Reform Will Affect Your FSA

November 18, 2010

These days it feels like change is the only constant. As working Americans prepare for open enrollment – the annual window where you can make key elections to your employee benefits – it’s very important to be aware of a number of recent changes that have occurred as a result of health care reform, including those changes that impact flexible spending accounts (FSAs). For those not already in the know, FSAs are a great way to plump up YOUR bottom line by enabling you to pay for necessary out-of-pocket medical expenses with pre-tax dollars. As a result, when you sign up for an FSA, you can save up to 40 percent on expenditures that you are going to make anyway. To help current and prospective FSA users prepare for open enrollment, I’ve teamed up with Wage Works on a ” Save Smart, Spend Healthy Campaign ” to spread the word on how you can make the most of this critical period. Here are four key differences from last year that you should know about when planning how much to contribute to your FSA account: 1. OTC Medicines Are Still Covered… But You Will Need A Prescription . When there is change, there is often confusion. A number of news stories have inaccurately reported that the IRS is no longer allowing over-the-counter (OTC) medications to be paid for with FSA funds. Thankfully, this is incorrect. The truth is that starting January 1, 2011 OTC medications (excluding insulin) will require a doctor’s prescription in order to be paid for with FSA funds. Note: the key word here is “medicines.” Other non-medicinal OTC items such as band-aids, crutches and diagnostic kits can still be paid for with FSA dollars prescription-free. The easiest way to prepare for the new rule around OTC medications is simply to have a frank dialogue with your doctor at your next annual exam and get the necessary paperwork (specifically, a prescription) in advance for things like allergy medicine or pain relief capsules. 2. Contribution Caps Are Coming… So Plan Today For Elective Procedures . Starting in 2013, annual contributions to FSA accounts will be capped at $2,500. (Right now contribution caps are set by individual employers, and tend to average around $5,000). If you’ve been contemplating an elective procedure for you or a qualified family member – such as LASIK or braces – 2011 and 2012 are the last two years in which to set aside and use extra funds in your FSA. Remember, a payment made with FSA dollars is akin to getting a discount of up to 40 percent off since you are paying with pre-tax dollars. So it’s really worth it to make an estimate of your FSA eligible expenses for the coming year and sign up to contribute that amount into your account. 3. Adult Children Get A Helping Hand… Under Certain Circumstances . Thanks to healthcare reform your adult children can stay on your healthcare policy up to age 26 – as long as they are not offered coverage by their employer. Now is a great time to check in with your entire family and see who might need coverage and/or whether any of your adult children qualify as dependents. Note: some firms will allow mid-year FSA contributions to reflect the addition of adult children so check with your HR department about their policies on qualifying events. 4. “Free” Preventative Care… Means Some Costs Will Go Away . Last but not least, routine screening for blood pressure, diabetes and cholesterol may no longer require a co-pay. Other cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies as well a pre-natal care visits, vaccinations, and routine infant and childcare checkups may also be provided as part of your baseline insurance – thus requiring no additional out-of-pocket cost. If you had previously used your FSA to pay for these expenses, you can pare back here. Ultimately, spending a little bit of time understanding how healthcare reform may change the amount you choose to contribute to your FSA for 2011 is an investment that you won’t regret.

Read the full article →

Christopher Hytry Derrington: 10 Most Common Startup Mistakes (PHOTOS)

November 18, 2010

Starting and running a small business is hard, risky work. According to the SBA, approximately 550,000 new businesses were started in the United States in 2009. Within two years, 30 percent will have failed. Half will be gone within five years. Only one in three will survive to celebrate their 10 year anniversary. In this Internet era, the speed of business is accelerating, the competition is global, and customers demand more than ever. As a result, business owners have a smaller margin for error. During my career as a serial entrepreneur, I’ve made my share of stupid mistakes (and will probably continue to do so). In spite of the inevitability of screw-ups, I take the time to analyze each one and figure out what I should have done differently. The introspection is much more painful and not nearly as fun as celebrating a success. But the old clich

Read the full article →

Tom Donohue: The Road Ahead for a Nation at Risk

November 18, 2010

Election Day is now two weeks behind us. The analyses and recriminations were many, and the “What does it mean?” debates will likely continue until the next election, when they will begin anew. Such is life for those whose job it is to analyze and propound on such things. But for us, as the voice of business and free enterprise, we don’t have the luxury of analysis and navel-gazing, for on so many fronts we are a nation at risk and we must be about the business of moving forward. When we say we are a nation at risk — borrowing a phrase famously used to describe the deplorable condition of our nation’s schools — we mean that our economy remains in a damaged state. We know how fragile this economy is because we are in touch with our members, business large and small across the country, every day. Today, our economy is simply not expanding fast enough to reduce unemployment and create 20 million jobs — the growth we need to get us back to where we were before we plunged into the deepest recession in the post-war era. It would be all too easy to backslide. We have many ills to confront at once. We must stem the rising tide of regulations, address our faltering schools, modernize our crumbling infrastructure, and rein in skyrocketing deficits. We need a sensible trade policy that will spur exports and create jobs here at home. The American people don’t want status quo, they want their problems solved. To that end, we will be focused on the following areas going forward: Supporting sensible regulations –

Read the full article →

Cindy Fornelli: Working Together to Fight Financial Reporting Fraud

November 18, 2010

Enron. Worldcom. Adelphia. Once upon a time, all were successful companies, the envy of the business world. Until each was undone by financial fraud perpetrated by corporate leadership. When major frauds like these are discovered, investors are left angry and the markets in disarray. We wonder why we didn’t see it coming. We ask, “How did this happen?” What compels someone to commit fraud — to work hard, rise to the top, then undo his or her life’s work by committing a crime? That question led the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) to launch an ambitious effort to understand financial reporting fraud, and to mitigate the conditions that can lead to such fraudulent behavior. As part of that initiative, the CAQ has established the first cross functional working group to develop tools and further research on deterring and detecting financial reporting fraud. The partnership is made up of leading organizations representing those with responsibility for the public company financial reporting “supply chain”: company management through Financial Executives International (FEI); audit committees through the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD); internal auditors through The Institute of Internal Auditors (The IIA); and external auditors through the CAQ. This partnership is the outgrowth of a report released in October by the CAQ, Deterring and Detecting Financial Reporting Fraud – A Platform for Action. The basis of the report was a series of roundtable discussions attended by more than 100 stakeholders, and led by Michele Hooper, the CAQ Governing Board’s Co-Vice Chair, public company audit committee chair, and corporate governance expert. The report argues that a collective sharing of ideas and resources will advance efforts to detect and deter fraud to the benefit of investors and the capital markets. The CAQ’s anti-fraud partnership with FEI, NACD and The IIA will engage in activities designed to help foster an overall environment in which the risk of financial reporting fraud is minimized. The essential elements of such an environment include a) having a strong “tone at the top” – a strong corporate culture that expects employees to “do the right thing” throughout all levels of a company; b) robust and frequent communication among company management, their board members, and the external auditor to share information relevant to the company’s financial reports and control environment and to identify gaps in fraud monitoring; and c) the application of skepticism, a questioning mindset that leads to professional objectivity and an attitude of “trust, but verify.” The partnership is designed to leverage the experience and resources of the four groups to produce new and better tools and resources to help the supply chain more effectively deter and detect fraud. Initial work will focus on four broad areas: Advancing the understanding of the conditions that contribute to fraud to better understand the pre-conditions and indicators of financial reporting fraud. Promoting enhanced skepticism that is able to overcome a natural inclination to trust management and others involved in financial reporting without creating a hostile environment. Moderating the risks inherent in focusing only on short-term results. Exploring the role of information technology, which can be both an inhibitor and a facilitator of financial statement fraud, to maximize its potential to inhibit fraud. The anti-fraud partnership soon will consider next steps within the four areas of focus, with the goal of making recommendations for specific projects early next year. One of those steps will be exploring the psychology behind fraudulent behavior to expand our understanding of “Why?” According to one expert observer in the CAQ’s new report, “Most people who come unstuck in this context of accounting misstatement are basically honest people who get caught up and then they get desperate.” Through the work of our collaborative partnership, our goal is not only to better understand why people commit fraud, but also spot the warning signs before it’s too late.

Read the full article →

Maylette Garces Appointed Executive Director of Casino Marketing at Barona Resort & Casino

November 18, 2010

SAN DIEGO, CA–(Marketwire – November 18, 2010) – With nearly 20 years of marketing and advertising experience, Maylette Garces has recently been appointed executive director of casino marketing at Barona Resort & Casino .

Read the full article →

David Fenton: Upside Down on Clean Energy

November 18, 2010

In America today, the truth is upside down on clean energy. I believe this is the primary reason we lost climate legislation in the Senate. Perception is reality, and reality is upside down. Upside down. We have allowed ourselves to be successfully tarred as the people who will hurt the economy by the fossil fuel forces who will guarantee the economic decline of America. As long as we are defined as the people who are going to raise everyone’s energy bills, we will not succeed politically. And that’s what we are now in the energy debate in Washington. Upside down. As clean energy transformation is the best — it may be the only — path to strong economic and job growth, including rebuilding our industrial base and economic competitiveness. As the British economist Nicholas Stern has said of clean energy, “these investments will play the role of the railways, electricity, the motor car and information technology in earlier periods of economic history.” Clean energy transformation, if properly financed and combined with energy-saving technologies, will lead to lower energy bills for Americans than our current path, as McKinsey and others have repeatedly demonstrated. Lower net bills, cheaper transportation and price stability. Upside down. Because sticking to fossil fuel business as usual will cause the economic decline of America. It will lead to much higher gasoline and food prices as world demand increases, losing the next industrial wave to China and Korea, the transfer of our wealth to the Middle East, trillions more for resource wars, and the enormous costs of climate adaptation and climate disruption. Sea walls, droughts, floods, snowpack loss, loss of agriculture and drinking water — not exactly economic benefits. Upside down. You know it. I know it. But we don’t talk this way. We are on the economic defensive, and it’s our own fault. We can’t win if we’re the people who will hurt the economy. It’s time that we became the pro-growth forces, and painted the tiny group of companies standing in the way, and their political apologists, as ANTI-GROWTH. Because that’s what they are. Anti-growth for everyone but themselves. The Wall Street Journal — anti-growth. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell — anti-growth. Exxon, Peabody, the Koch brothers, Midwestern utilities, BP, Chevron, Rupert Murdoch, Sarah Palin — all in the way of a better economic future for America. All leading us to further industrial decline, decaying infrastructure, job loss, and higher food and gas prices. We have the facts to show it. When are we going to tell our story? When are we going to stop relying mostly on quietly presenting facts to officials in person or speaking largely to the converted. When are we going to seize the economic initiative in the public and Washington discourse? Recently, I had lunch with a top editor of one of America’s leading news organizations. I mentioned that it has been true for many years now that rooftop solar electricity is cost-effective in most of the country for new homes when financed by the home mortgage. The editor accused me of distortion, because “everybody knows solar is too expensive.” But I’m right — it’s been true for many years, even at higher interest rates than now. Why doesn’t this editor know? You can’t blame the editor. It’s our fault. Of course we also have to put the climate and Congressional skeptics on the defensive, explain and defend the science, and challenge the media to stop featuring industry propagandists and skeptical bloggers as equal to published, peer-reviewed climate scientists. Of course we need Californians and residents of Phoenix and Las Vegas to understand their irrigation and drinking water days are numbered. Washingtonians to visualize the inevitable flooding of the nation’s monuments and many weeks of over 95 degree temperatures. Chicagoans to expect heat wave deaths in the thousands like France. Farmers to understand what’s coming. But if we don’t show that our path leads to prosperity, and theirs to economic decline, we won’t win politically, we won’t get the R&D and investments funds the industry needs, we won’t end fossil fuel subsidies, restore the jobs of Americans and we will still be trying to get a price on carbon five years from now or even longer. So let’s get started. It’s time to turn things rightside up for our country. Adapted from my remarks at the Sierra Club Climate Solutions Summit, November 18, 2010, San Francisco.

Read the full article →

Madoff Victim Sells Penthouse At $4 M. Discount to Dutch Artists

November 18, 2010

Dorris Carr Bonfigli is the perfect Manhattan socialite: beautiful, charming and terribly unlucky. One of Bernie Madoff’s victims, Ms. Bonfigli listed her prized Fifth Avenue penthouse just before Christmas 2008 for $11.3 million. After months on the market and a half-dozen price cuts, the place at 930 Fifth Avenue has finally sold for $7.5 million.

Read the full article →

Study: Boycott Cost Arizona $140 Million

November 18, 2010

PHOENIX — A boycott of Arizona in the wake of a controversial immigration law has cost the state more than $140 million in lost meeting and convention business, a new report released Thursday shows. The economic impact analysis commissioned by the Center for American Progress put hotel industry losses during the first four months after the signing at about $45 million. Visitors would have spent an additional $96 million during their stays, said Angela Kelley, the group’s vice president for immigration and advocacy. “This is as much I think to serve a warning to other states, particularly those who rely on tourism and conferences and conventions, that there is an economic impact to it,” Kelley said. “We feel like this is a very modest slice, just a piece of what the economic impact is, and we don’t think that we’re overstating it or overselling it.” The study was paid for by the group, a liberal-leaning think tank, but conducted by the respected Scottsdale-based economic firm Elliott D. Pollack & Co. It also says lost bookings will probably continue for more than a year, multiplying the effect of a boycott called by immigrant-rights activists after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the state’s new law in April. Former state Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez said the goal of the boycott was to bring the state’s economy to a stop in much the same way that a boycott punished the state 20 years ago over its refusal to honor the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. with a holiday. The immigration law would require police – in enforcing other laws – to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. Opponents said that could lead to racial profiling, and said immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government. After U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put the most controversial parts of the law on hold on constitutional grounds in July, some opponents of the measure called for the boycott to end, including U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and the grocery workers union. An estimated 15 million visitors come to Arizona each year for vacations, conventions and sporting events such as the Fiesta Bowl, pro golf tournaments and baseball spring training. The state tourism office estimates that conventions and other tourism-related activity brought in $16.6 billion in 2009 and that 157,200 people were employed in industry. __ Online: Center for American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/

Read the full article →

Preeti Vissa: The Film You Must See — or, We Told You So

November 18, 2010

A few days ago I joined a group of my colleagues from The Greenlining Institute to see the new documentary, Inside Job . I don’t normally go around telling people what to do, but seriously: Step away from the computer and go see this film. We had a special motivation for seeing Inside Job , which lays out in painful detail how the subprime mortgage meltdown happened and how it tanked the economy: Greenlining’s co-founder, Robert Gnaizda, is featured prominently. In a film that will leave any sane person furious and frustrated, he’s highlighted one of precious few who saw the crisis coming and tried to sound a warning. What filmmaker Charles Ferguson does — better than just about anyone else thus far — is connect the dots in a way that makes this very complex material understandable. He shows how a deregulated environment separated lenders from the consequences of their actions, producing a massive housing bubble that was built on a foundation of wishful thinking, speculation, inflated appraisals, bogus bond ratings and outright fraud. The result was a speculative frenzy in which lenders could make a fast buck (hundreds of millions of fast bucks, actually) by making subprime loans, often misleadingly marketed to gloss over hidden time bombs like exploding interest rates, quickly bundling them into securities called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and selling them to investors. Without any sort of meaningful oversight to ensure that increasingly complex financial instruments bore some connection to reality, financial operators simply made stuff up — from appraisals phonied up to make a loan seem viable when it really wasn’t to AAA ratings given to securities that close examination would have shown to be nearly worthless. Much of what happened was utterly mad: For example, borrowers were allowed to borrow 99.3 percent of value of their homes, meaning they had basically no investment in the house, and yet two thirds of the securities backed by these loans were rated AAA, as safe as government bonds. It was insane, but while home prices kept skyrocketing it was easy to ignore that the whole boom was built on air. Enter Greenlining’s Bob Gnaizda, one of the few who dared to say that trouble was brewing. In meetings with then Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan and other officials, he warned of dangerous and dishonest marketing of subprime loans that was bound to lead to waves of foreclosures and trouble for the whole housing market. But regulators like Greenspan, ideologically opposed to regulation, refused to believe the market wouldn’t correct itself. And everyone in the jungle of lenders and speculators was too busy making piles of money to be interested in the long-term consequences. As we survey the ongoing wreckage — massive unemployment and millions more foreclosures coming if nothing is done — it’s tempting to say, we told you so . And we did, literally. But instead of gloating about predicting the last disaster, it may be more useful to talk about how to stop the next one, and that’s what I’ll be spending the next several weeks doing. More troubles are coming, but like the subprime crash, they’re preventable — if we chose to put aside the conventional wisdom. NEXT WEEK: What Inside Job didn’t show, and what it means.

Read the full article →

$12 Billion Hedge Fund Has Its Own Unofficial Golf Pro

November 18, 2010

NEW YORK (By Matthew Goldstein) – Sam Evans may not have the most powerful or lucrative position in the hedge fund world. But his job at SAC Capital Advisors is one a lot of people, and not just financial industry types, would die for. Unlike his co-workers, the hundreds of traders and analysts who work at Steven Cohen’s $12 billion hedge fund, Evans does not stare at computer screens, map out stock charts or work the phones for information on the markets all day. Rather, he spends much of his time negotiating the greens — quite literally. Evans, 49, who joined Cohen’s Stamford, Connecticut-based firm in August 2009 after more than 20 years as an institutional stock broker, is SAC Capital’s unofficial golf pro. Evans job isn’t so much helping SAC Capital portfolio managers and others at the fund with their strokes, as it is helping them gain a better understanding of some of the companies Cohen’s hedge fund puts money into. As part of the hedge fund’s business development group, he sets up dozens of golf outings for SAC Capital traders and analysts over the course of a year. Guests at these small gatherings are varied, say investment bank sources familiar with Evans’ job description. Invitees might be wealthy individuals from whom Cohen is trying to raise money. Or they might be corporate executives with companies about which the hedge fund is trying learn more. A handful of SAC Capital employees and Wall Street analysts may also tag along from time to time. An amateur golfer with a respectable 7-stroke handicap, Evans has found a unique way to marry his golf skills with the big rolodex of corporate executives he struck up friendships with during his time at Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette and more recently Deutsche Bank. A member of more than a half dozen prestigious East Coast golf clubs, Evans has played with an elite group over the years, including former President Bill Clinton. Now there is nothing unusual about brokers, traders and business executives spending a lot of their free time teeing off on the links. Many a corporate merger has been agreed to in principle on the back nine. And Wall Street investment firms are famous for sponsoring charity golf outings that are widely attended by hedge fund traders, mutual fund managers and corporate executives. Investment firms and mutual funds often arrange similar “corporate access” events — typically conferences and dinners — where money managers and analysts are invited to meet and schmooze with business leaders. Yet, the ability of a big hedge fund to get several hours alone with a corporate executive on a golf course reveals the great information disparity that exists between ordinary investors and the savviest of traders. “To some extent, the notion of a level playing field and a truly public market is a myth,” said Donald Langevoort, a Georgetown University Law Center professor. SOMEBODY’S GOT TO DO IT What’s clear is that there aren’t many on Wall Street, much less at a hedge fund, like Evans, who gets paid to play golf three or four times a week with corporate executives and other rich people at historic courses like Merion Golf Club in suburban Philadelphia or Shinnecock Hills Golf Club on Long Island. In fact, one person who knows Evans and has golfed with him calls him something of a “pioneer” in the $1.7 trillion hedge fund industry. Others, upon learning of Evans and his unusual post, expressed a sentiment similar to the one stated by the manager of another hedge fund: “How do I get a job like that?” Evans, a 1987 Harvard Business School graduate who was named one of Wall Street’s top institutional equity salesmen in a Reuters survey in 2000, declined to comment through an SAC Capital spokesman. Like his boss, Cohen, he appears to guard his privacy vigorously — a fairly intensive Internet search for a picture of him on the links came up empty. Jonathan Gasthalter, SAC’s spokesman, also declined to discuss Cohen’s decision to hire Evans and his unusual corporate role. To some degree, Evans may owe his job to the new reality hedge fund managers find themselves in following the worst financial crisis in decades. Today, even the industry’s most successful managers must work harder than ever to woo new investors and keep current ones from bolting. But beyond the need to raise capital, Evans’ time spent on the greens also sheds a light on the many often subtle ways that hedge funds use to get access to corporate executives and a potential edge over their competitors. “While this job sounds unique, it is my understanding there are a lot of people with jobs at hedge funds who are there to help facilitate information flow,” said Jill Fisch, a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor, who specializes in corporate governance issues. “The whole goal at a hedge fund is to have an information edge.” PAR FOR THE COURSE Securities experts said there’s nothing inherently wrong with a hedge fund organizing small golf outings for its traders and analysts to meet with corporate executives in order to get to know a company or an industry better. That is the kind of fundamental research and basic information gathering that often separates one hedge fund from the other. But securities lawyers said there is always a concern that in a casual setting like playing three hours of golf, a company executive may blurt out some confidential corporate information and the hedge fund later trades on it. “The potential issues are fairly obvious because these are events where there is unlikely to be strong compliance control,” said Langevoort, the Georgetown professor. “Everybody knows in their head what the rules are. But when you go out in one of these settings it is easy to slip.” A securities lawyer in New York, who did not want to be identified because he and his law firm do a lot of regulatory defense work for Wall Street investment firms, said concern about the leaking of confidential information is always greatest when traders and executives gather in more intimate settings as opposed to some well-attended public event like a football or baseball game. In the wake of the October 16 2009 arrest of Galleon Group co-founder Raj Rajaratnam and nearly two-dozen others on insider trading charges, federal authorities have said stamping out the misuse of secret corporate information by hedge funds is a major priority. Authorities are particularly focused on the ways hedge funds gather information to get a so-called trading edge. The Galleon investigation also has caused headaches for Cohen because several people charged in the case had once worked at SAC Capital. But so far no one has been charged with wrongful trading while working at Cohen’s fund. CHIP SHOTS To be sure, there’s no indication that the golf excursions arranged by Evans have raised any concerns with regulators or federal authorities. People familiar with them said Evans’ main task is to set up golf dates with corporate executives to help cement better relationships, not unearth confidential corporate information. In fact, SAC Capital takes steps to make sure that even if some executive let his lips flap a bit too much while waiting to hit a putt, the fund doesn’t trade on anything that is said. A former SAC Capital employee familiar with the golf outings said shares of companies whose executives attend a golf outing that Evans has either arranged or co-sponsored are put on a “restricted list” — meaning the stock can’t be traded for a set period of time. In September, for instance, SAC Capital put shares of chemical company DuPont on the restricted list, after Evans and another SAC employee attended a small golf outing with Deutsche chemical analyst David Begleiter and Dupont Chief Financial Officer Nicholas Fanandakis. The outing, which also included a few mutual fund managers, was officially organized by Begleiter. The small outing was held at Merion Golf Club, often rated as one of the top private courses in the United States, because Evans is a member of the 114-year-old club. He and Begleiter became friendly during the nine years Evans worked for Deutsche. Officials with Deutsche and DuPont declined to comment. Chandler Withington, Merion’s assistant golf professional, said in an email that the club does not disclose “information on any of our members without their consent.” In a regulatory filing, SAC Capital reported owning 65,000 shares of DuPont, a rather meager position for a large hedge fund. Evans, a former college swimmer and baseball player at American University, did not take up golf until graduate school. Standing approximately 6’4″ inches tall, he is said to be ambidextrous, able to throw and write with both hands. People who know him say Evans has worked hard to hone his golfing skills, even overcoming a case of Guillain-Barre syndrome in 1994 — an ailment that can cause temporary muscle paralysis. Several of his friends, who did not want to be identified, said Evans values the relationships he made with wealthy individuals and corporate executives while working on Wall Street. They added that he would not do anything to jeopardize the friendships he has made or his reputation. Jack Thompson, an avid golfer who is in the business of raising capital for a number of investment funds, said he sees nothing unusual about using golf as a way to get to know a person or a company. “This is no different than the CEO of some company golfing with customers,” said Thompson. “They are networking and sharing information. It doesn’t mean they are doing anything wrong.” Some on Wall Street said getting face time with a corporate executive on a golf course is akin to a hedge fund throwing a splashy party at a nightclub or renting a cruise boat to entertain guests — something many funds are known to do from time to time. Others point out that many hedge funds work with doctors to get insight on medical industry trends and some even hire private investigators to gather dirt on chief executive officers. For instance, in 2007, William Ackman, the manager of Pershing Square Capital Management, employed an outside consultant to track the corporate plane travel of Ceridian Corp.’s then chairman L. White Matthews. Ackman, in mounting a campaign to push for changes at Ceridian, had charged the company let Matthews misuse the corporate jet by flying seven times in 63 days to his vacation home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. SHUSH Still, there is something about golf, with its leisurely pace and the tendency of players to turn off their phones and Blackberrys for a while, that can encourage normally tight-lipped people to let their hair down. Over the years, it’s something securities regulators have noticed as well. In 2001, for instance, the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors charged a San Diego man with making $137,485 in illegal profits from a confidential tip he got while golfing with the director of a company that was on the verge of being acquired. Federal authorities charged Douglas Gloff with trading on the inside information after the director of Acuson said the company was “going to go away.” Authorities didn’t charge the unnamed director with any wrongdoing after concluding he made a mistake and tried to prevent Gloff from trading on the confidential buyout information. Regulators said the director called Gloff and told him not to buy any Acuson shares “unless you want to go to jail.” Gloff subsequently pleaded guilty to insider trading, forfeited his illicit trading profits and paid a $137,485 fine to the federal government. Still, securities experts say a savvy trader can glean a lot from a long golf game with a company executive even if the talk on the greens has nothing to do with business. They point out that an astute trader can learn a lot from a person’s body language and demeanor. “Sometimes you can watch a person for four hours and get an idea of how things are going at a company,” said Georgetown’s Langevoort. “You can learn a lot from what he doesn’t want to talk about.” Cohen just might be onto something here with the hiring of Evans. As one of the hedge fund industry’s most successful managers for more than two decades, he’s had a reputation for making some groundbreaking hires. SAC Capital was one of the first hedge funds to hire an in-house psychiatrist, Ari Kiev, to talk to stressed traders and analysts. Kiev died last November. Several years ago, Cohen aggressively started adding compliance people to the payroll to make sure traders at the fund do not cross the line. Other big funds have since followed suit. So, who knows? Maybe instead of “2 and 20″ — a typical hedge fund’s management and performance fees — “fore!” will become the industry’s new mantra. (Reported by Matthew Goldstein; Editing by Jim Impoco and Claudia Parsons) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Starbucks To Start Growing Coffee In China, CEO Says

November 18, 2010

Starbucks has not only helped popularize coffee in China, it’s also aiming to bring Chinese coffee to the world. “Starbucks, for the first time in our 40-year history, is going to start growing coffee,” CEO Howard Schultz said while on a trip to Beijing. “We’re going to actually plant trees and grow coffee in China, in the Yunnan Province.” The U.S.-based chain is making what Schultz calls “a comprehensive strategic commitment to doing business in China, in a way that’s locally relevant.”

Read the full article →

Joe Klein: ‘Righteous Burghers’ Obsessed With Debt Are Ignoring The Economy

November 18, 2010

Again, I’m not opposed to long-term deficit reduction, so long as it’s equitable. But I do wonder why these righteous burghers are leading the charge on this particular issue and are so obviously AWOL on a more pressing problem: finding a way to encourage productive investment that creates jobs while discouraging the financial speculation that creates bailouts. For starters, there needs to be a stiff sin tax on speculation. At the very least, the resplendent Olympians should work to put their squalid McMansion in order — by launching a public-service campaign against excessive executive compensation and devoting their considerable energies to encouraging our smartest young people to go into careers that produce jobs, not deals — before they’re allowed to lecture former assembly-line workers about the sacrifices they have to make in order to balance the budget.

Read the full article →

Were The Bush Tax Cuts Good For Growth? Not So Much

November 18, 2010

Liz Peek at FoxNews.com congratulates me for writing about the importance of economic growth. So in the spirit of maximizing growth, I want to pose a question: Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?

Read the full article →

Donald Trump: ‘I Like’ Sarah Palin, ‘But I’d Take Her On’ In 2012

November 18, 2010

Real estate mogul Donald Trump says he’s thinking about running for president, saying “everybody’s ripping off the United States.” Trump tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulus in an interview he doesn’t actually want to run, but that he’s worried about the country’s future and thinks he could be the person to stand up to America’s rivals. He singled out China for criticism in the interview, accusing Beijing of manipulating its currency to gain unfair advantage of the United States in global trade competition. He has shown interest in the past in running for president, in both 1988 and 2000. But in the interview, Trump said, “I am thinking about things.” He said he expects to decide by June and said he’d likely run as a Republican if he enters the race. Last month, Trump communicated a similar message on the possibility he’d jump into the 2012 presidential mix. “I’m totally being serious because I can’t stand what’s happening to the country,” he explained during an appearance on Fox News. “I am being serious about it. I’ve been asked for years to do it. And I had no interest. This is the first time I am — at least I’m considering it.” On Thursday’s edition of GMA, Trump said “it could be fun” to mount a run for the White House because he’d “like to see some positive things happen for the country.” He also spoke out on the possibility of facing off against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin , who signaled this week she’s seriously considering running for president in the next election cycle. “She’s very interesting,” explained Trump. “And don’t underestimate her. I mean, I see what she does. Do not underestimate Sarah Palin.” He added, “I would take her on. I like her, but I’d take her on.” WATCH:

Read the full article →