July 2011

PepsiCo profit to grow slower

July 24, 2011

PepsiCo profit to grow slower

Read the full article →

UK June retail sales up 0.7%

July 24, 2011

UK June retail sales up 0.7%

Read the full article →

Schlumberger Q2 revenue up 62% to USD9.62b

July 24, 2011

Schlumberger Q2 revenue up 62% to USD9.62b

Read the full article →

Dutch TomTom Q2 loss USD701m

July 24, 2011

Dutch TomTom Q2 loss USD701m

Read the full article →

Bandanna Energy Limited (ASX:BND) Significant Increase in Indicated Resources for Springsure Creek Project

July 24, 2011

Bandanna Energy Limited (ASX:BND) Significant Increase in Indicated Resources for Springsure Creek Project

Read the full article →

Linc Energy Limited (ASX:LNC) Termination of ERG Resources LLC Agreement

July 24, 2011

Linc Energy Limited (ASX:LNC) Termination of ERG Resources LLC Agreement

Read the full article →

McDonald’s Q2 net income up 15%

July 24, 2011

McDonald’s Q2 net income up 15%

Read the full article →

Petrobas approves USD224.7b investment program

July 24, 2011

Petrobas approves USD224.7b investment program

Read the full article →

Reynolds American Q2 profit down 11%

July 24, 2011

Reynolds American Q2 profit down 11%

Read the full article →

No plans yet to stop oil export to India over payment dispute: Iran

July 24, 2011

No plans yet to stop oil export to India over payment dispute: Iran

Read the full article →

Kia agrees on 2011 wage deal with union

July 24, 2011

Kia agrees on 2011 wage deal with union

Read the full article →

Dart Energy Limited (ASX:DTE) New South Wales Operations Update

July 24, 2011

Dart Energy Limited (ASX:DTE) New South Wales Operations Update

Read the full article →

ADX Energy Limited (ASX:ADX) Update on Sidi Dhaher Operations

July 24, 2011

ADX Energy Limited (ASX:ADX) Update on Sidi Dhaher Operations

Read the full article →

Daniel Dicker: Debt Debate — Politicians Shirk the Responsibilities of the Job

July 23, 2011

I’m sitting on a tarmac in Louisville, Kentucky, waiting for takeoff clearance. A minute or so before the engines go to full throttle and we start picking up speed towards heading skyward, I’m thinking about all the people I’m relying upon to have been responsible in doing their jobs: I’m counting on the mechanic who last looked over the engines, the torque on the bolts and the air pressure in the tires. I’m trusting that the pilots got enough sleep and aren’t in the cockpit viewing the instruments through bleary eyes. I rely upon the controllers to direct the path of the aircraft away from others and any violent weather. I cannot see any of these people from where I sit, but I implicitly rely upon them to take the responsibilities of their jobs seriously, in order to keep me safe. In dealing with the debt limit crisis, it doesn’t seem that our politicians share that feeling of responsibility. One responsibility of the job of being a Congressman is to support the credit structure of the United States and not put its stature at risk. Another, I think, would decouple the responsibility of paying for things already bought from philosophical and political ideas on future spending and tax reform. It wouldn’t ignore the two most knowledgeable people on the subject of default, the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman. It wouldn’t minimize the comments of the world’s greatest investor, Warren Buffet, who has likened the debate to pointing a gun at the head of the American economy. The market has been resolutely oblivious of the debt limit crisis, rallying on its merry way while bond rates have continued to go down — the 10-year treasury is still, amazingly, well under 3 percent. And yet, comments from Speaker John Boehner today, imploring the President to get behind a Congressionally passed one-sided budget bill that has no chance in hell of getting passed in the Senate indicates that he cannot control his caucus and get even close to the 25 Republican votes that a “big deal” compromise would need to get the debt limit approved — no matter how limited the revenue increases the President might agree to or from what sources it might emerge. It looks like a pretty bleak picture, especially if you believe that the President has chosen to hold the line on the Debt ceiling debate believing both in his philosophical stance and political advantage here. That this whole “game” has come down to an expectant Republican party painting themselves into a corner and expecting the President to give again, and a Democratic party hoping to see their President show some political backbone while Rome burns is maddening to watch. With such an important deadline fast approaching, with my retirement account and my clients’ at such grave risk, I am wondering when the responsibility of the job of being a Congressman will trump the rhetoric and jousting for political advantage. Civilized societies do not require you give a pilot an alcohol test before entering the cockpit, or to triple check every mechanic maintaining a plane. We place our trust in them and rightly so, and overwhelmingly they reward us for that trust. In Washington, however, the bus keeps hurtling towards a wall.

Read the full article →

Boehner: Debt Ceiling Crisis Will Be Resolved

July 23, 2011

(AP) WASHINGTON — Precariously short of time, congressional leaders struggled in urgent, weekend-long talks to avert an unprecedented government default, desperate to show enough progress to head off a plunge in stock prices when Asian markets open ahead of the U.S. workweek. President Barack Obama met Saturday with Republican and Democratic leaders – but only briefly_ the day after House Speaker John Boehner abruptly broke off his own once-promising compromise talks with the White House. Staff members kept up detailed efforts. The goal now is to produce at least a framework agreement to raise the nation’s debt limit by Monday, congressional officials said. Even that would allow scarcely enough time for the House and Senate to clear legislation in time for Obama’s signature by the Aug. 2 deadline, a week from Tuesday. House Speaker John Boehner told rank-and-file Republicans in a conference call after Saturday’s meeting that he hoped to be able to announce a “viable framework for progress” by 4 p.m. EDT on Sunday, before the stock markets open in Japan and elsewhere in Asia, according to two participants. Lawmakers fear a big drop in investor confidence in U.S. stocks and bonds could start in Asia and sweep toward Europe and the Americas, causing U.S. stock values to plunge on Monday. Barring action by Aug. 2, the Treasury will run out of the money needed to pay all its bills, triggering a possible default that could seriously damage the domestic economy and send damaging waves across the globe. Obama has warned repeatedly of the possibility of a spike in interest rates that could affect Americans’ mortgages, credit cards and other forms of personal debt. “The bipartisan leadership in Congress is committed to working on new legislation that will prevent default while substantially reducing Washington spending,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a written statement not long after he, Boehner and Democratic leaders met with Obama at the White House. Obama appeared grim-faced as he convened the meeting around the big table in the White House Cabinet Room. He was flanked by Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Vice President Joe Biden, McConnell and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also attended. Aides were not present when reporters were allowed in briefly, suggesting the discussion was general rather than an exchange of detailed policy proposals. Afterward, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a stern statement: “Congress should refrain from playing reckless political games with our economy. Instead, it should be responsible and do its job, avoiding default and cutting the deficit.” Sixteen blocks away at the Capitol, congressional aides said the White House would not have a presence at the bargaining table with House and Senate leaders. Under normal procedures, Boehner would need to have legislation on the House floor by Wednesday to allow enough time for a measure to reach Obama’s desk in time to meet the debt-limit deadline. Negotiators were working against two avowedly non-negotiable demands – Obama’s insistence on a plan that assures no rerun of the current crisis until 2013 at the earliest, and Boehner’s requirement that spending cuts over 10 years must exceed the size of any increase in borrowing authority – without any rise in taxes. To comply with both edicts, under most estimates, legislation would have to cut more than $2.4 trillion across the next decade, since that is the amount of additional borrowing authority the Treasury is expected to require to pay the nation’s bills. Also complicating the talks were divisions within each party. Liberal Democrats are generally opposed to cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Obama hopes to use the negotiations to appeal to voters who want big cuts in federal deficits. Tea party-backed Republicans, dozens of whom are in the House, adamantly oppose any higher taxes, while Obama has made more revenue the price of admission to the talks. It was unclear how much Reid, Pelosi, Boehner and McConnell would rely on the results of earlier talks, those that Vice President Joe Biden held with lawmakers for several weeks in the Capitol and negotiations Obama had with leaders in a group and with Boehner. Judging from accounts provided by officials in both parties, Obama had previously agreed to significant changes in benefit programs, including raising the raise of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67 for future recipients, and also slowing the projected rise in Social Security cost of living benefits. His concessions triggered a revolt earlier in the week by Senate Democrats, who feared he was giving away too much without getting enough additional government revenue in return. For his part, Boehner had been ready to agree to an overhaul of the tax code that would result in a net increase of revenue to the government of $800 billion over a decade. There also had been a general agreement to cut $1 trillion or more from hundreds of government programs ranging from the Park Service to foreign aid and agriculture, and to chalk up another $1 trillion in savings by assuming the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was another possible element of a deal on the shelf – legislation that McConnell and Reid have developed that would let Obama raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in three installments over the next year or so without prior approval by Congress. Instead, he would be required to recommend spending cuts assured of coming to a vote in Congress. Additionally, that proposal envisions establishment of a special congressional committee to recommend cuts in benefit programs such as Medicare and Social Security and possibly draft a tax reform bill as well. Boehner did not speak with reporters as he entered or departed the White House, instead arranging a telephone conference call so he could update the members of his rank and file. In a brief statement after the meeting, he said, “As I said last night, over this weekend Congress will forge a responsible path forward. House and Senate leaders will be working to find a bipartisan solution to significantly reduce Washington spending and preserve the full faith and credit of the United States.” It was his decision Friday night to break off his talks with the White House that triggered an extraordinary evening in which divided government briefly appeared to be irretrievably gridlocked. The speaker said Obama wanted higher taxes and not enough spending cuts, adding, “It’s the president who walked away from his agreement.” But speaking to reporters at the White House, Obama said he had offered an “extraordinarily fair deal” that totaled $2.6 trillion in spending cuts and $1.2 trillion in additional revenue. “I’ve been left at the altar now a couple of times,” he said wryly, adding that Boehner had declined to return his phone calls.

Read the full article →

Debt Talks Break Up After 50 Minutes

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — A tense White House meeting on the expiring debt limit broke up after less than an hour today, with the president and leaders of Congress agreeing only that it was urgent to find a path forward this weekend, a source familiar with the meeting said. Staffers were set to work through the weekend, in hopes of crafting a compromise that could avert the United States beginning to default on its debt starting Aug. 2. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement soon after the session that Obama wanted assurances that Congress would not let the nation become delinquent. “The president wanted to know that there was a plan for preventing national default,” McConnell said. “The bipartisan leadership in Congress is committed to working on new legislation that will prevent default while substantially reducing Washington spending.” The remarks hinted that leaders may be narrowing in on the plan McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had been working on, which would hand authority to the president to raise the debt ceiling in three stages, paired with spending cuts totaling about $1.5 trillion. One obstacle to following that path is the president’s desire for a larger package — a so-called grand bargain — that would at least last through the election season. Another is that many House Republicans do not like the McConnell plan. Obama might have to back down, and enough Tea Party Republicans would have to conclude that default is worse than a smaller, though still large, cut. The print pool report from the start of Saturday’s meeting suggested it began extremely tense, but TV reporters who lingered just a little longer said President Obama broke the ice with a joke about golf . “I think everybody agrees it’s too hot to play golf today,” Obama told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), referring to their recent golf summit, which also did not lead to a breakthrough on debt negotiations.

Read the full article →

Andy Lopata: How do you Make Introductions Without Losing Friends?

July 23, 2011

One of the biggest challenges facing many people when they look at how they can refer other people is the fear that they will upset friends in the process. At a recent BrightTalk seminar on how to generate referrals, I was asked how to make introductions without losing friends. The full question read: “I am trying to make referrals for someone I met in the insurance and financial planning industry. The difficulty is that to just give him names of friends and people I know might annoy them when he starts contacting them. But it is also difficult to ask questions to qualify the lead as it’s a bit personal in nature.” There are two parts to the answer. The first part lies in the definition of a referral. Many industries and sales teams focus on collecting names and numbers from people as part of their ‘referral strategy’. They are then happy to cold call those people and hopefully get sufficient names to get some sales. This is not referral generation, it is lead generation. They are completely different things. Picture yourself sitting at your desk busy trying to meet a deadline. The phone rings. It is someone trying to sell you something. You are not expecting their call, you don’t necessarily recognise that you have a need for their services and, to be honest, you don’t have the time or inclination to find out. Whether or not they use the name of someone you know as part of their introduction. Now imagine the same scene. Only this time you are expecting the call, you know what it is about and why it is relevant to you. However busy you are, you will be far more receptive to the caller and what they have to say. That is because they have been referred to you. In other words, a friend has recommended their services because they may be able to help you and you have agreed to accept their call. So, the first part of my answer is that you shouldn’t give your friends’ names out as leads without their knowledge. You can almost guarantee that you will upset more than one person that way. So, how do you overcome the problem of asking personal questions? The financial advisor you are trying to refer should be able to help you there. Ask him for examples of some of his typical clients and when they need his help. Not for the personal financial situation, but the general one. People look at their financial planning typically when something happens to change their situation. It may be that they are buying a first home, are expecting their first child, are planning to retire or a host of reasons. The examples above are all situations you could easily recognise in your friends. If the financial planner can explain why people in that situation need his help and the difference he can make to them, it should be easy for you to convey that message in a way that your friends will want to speak with him; because he can make their life better or easier. You don’t have to risk relationships when you pass referrals. In fact, if you do things the right way, that can make a positive impact on people, it helps you build relationships and make new friends.

Read the full article →

Jeffrey Sachs: Budgetary Deceit and America’s Decline

July 23, 2011

As I shuttle between East Africa, where a severe drought threatens the lives of more than 10 million people, and Athens, where a financial crisis threatens Greece and all of Europe, I am shocked by the U.S. budget negotiations between Congress and President Obama. Every part of the budget debate in the U.S. is built on a tissue of willful deceit. Consider the Republican Party’s double-mantra that the deficit results from “runaway spending” and that more tax cuts are the key to economic growth. Republicans claim that the budget deficit, around 10 percent of GDP, has been caused only by a rise in outlays. This is blatantly untrue. The deficit results roughly equally from a fall of tax revenues as a share of GDP and a rise of spending as a share of GDP. On both sides of the ledger — spending and taxes — part of the shift results from the weak economy (“cyclical factors”) and part from long-term trends. Spending, for example, is higher in part because of unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other federal spending to help the downtrodden in a weak economy. That’s the “cyclical” component. Part of the higher spending reflects long-term patterns, such as rising health care costs and an aging population, as well as America’s chronic addiction to wrongheaded wars and military occupations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Taxation is lower also because of short-term factors and long-term factors. The short-term factors involve reduced federal revenues in an economy with high unemployment. The long-term factors involve repeated tax cuts for companies and high-income individuals that have systematically eroded the tax base, giving unjust and unaffordable benefits for America’s millionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations. The Republicans also misrepresent the costs and benefits of closing the deficit through higher taxes on the rich. Americans wants the rich to pay more, and for good reason. Super-rich Americans have walked away with the prize in America. Our country is run by millionaires and billionaires, and for millionaires and billionaires, the rest of the country be damned. Yet the Republicans and their propaganda mouthpieces like Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, claim with sheer audacity that taxing the rich would kill economic growth. This trickle-down, voodoo, supply-side economics is the fig leaf of uncontrolled greed among the right-wing rich. The truth is that we need more federal spending to create good jobs and remain globally competitive, not as some kind of short-term “stimulus” but as a long-term investment in education, job skills, science, technology, energy security, and modern infrastructure. I travel around the world as part of my job, and I can say without doubt that America has failed to modernize the economy and is steadily losing its international competitiveness. No wonder the good jobs are disappearing and the pay is stagnant, unless of course you are a CEO who can keep grabbing stock options and profits from the shareholders (who are anyway enjoying record incomes because of stagnant wages and high profits earned overseas). The Democrats of the White House and much of Congress have been less crude, but no less insidious, in their duplicity. Obama’s campaign promise to “change Washington” looks like pure bait and switch. There has been no change, but rather more of the same: the Wall-Street-owned Democratic Party as we have come to know it. The idea that the Republicans are for the billionaires and the Democrats are for the common man is quaint but outdated. It’s more accurate to say that the Republicans are for Big Oil while the Democrats are for Big Banks. That has been the case since the modern Democratic Party was re-created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. Thus, at every crucial opportunity, Obama has failed to stand up for the poor and middle class. He refused to tax the banks and hedge funds properly on their outlandish profits; he refused to limit in a serious way the bankers’ mega-bonuses even when the bonuses were financed by taxpayer bailouts; and he even refused to stand up against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich last December, though 60 percent of the electorate repeatedly and consistently demanded that the Bush tax cuts at the top should be ended. It’s not hard to understand why. Obama and Democratic Party politicians rely on Wall Street and the super-rich for campaign contributions the same way that the Republicans rely on oil and coal. In America today, only the rich have political power. Obama could have cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that has been wasted on America’s disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, but here too it’s been all bait and switch. Obama is either afraid to stand up to the Pentagon or is part of the same neoconservative outlook as his predecessor. The real cause hardly matters since the outcome is the same: America is more militarily engaged under Obama than even under Bush. Amazing but true. The stimulus legislation, pushed by Obama at the start of his term on the basis of antiquated economic theories, wasted the public’s money and also did something much worse. It discredited the vital role of public spending in solving real and long-term problems. Rather than thinking ahead and planning for long-term solutions, he simply spent money on short-term schemes. Obama’s embrace of “shovel-ready” infrastructure, for example, left America with an economy based on shovels while China’s long-term strategy has given that country an economy based on 21st-century Maglev trains. Now that the resort to mega-deficits has run its course, Obama is on the verge of abandoning the poor and middle class, by agreeing with the plutocrats in Congress to cut spending on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and discretionary civilian spending, while protecting the military and the low tax rates on the rich (if not lowering those top tax rates further according to the secret machinations of the Gang of Six, now endorsed by the president!) Who runs America today? The rich and the multinational corporations. Who runs the White House? David Plouffe, whose job it is to make sure that ever word, every action of the president is calculated for electoral gain rather than the country’s needs. Who runs the Congress, on both sides of the aisle? The lobbyists, who win in every negotiation. And who loses? The American people, who have said repeatedly that they want a budget that sharply cuts the military, ends the wars, raises taxes on the rich, protects the poor and the middle class, and invests in America’s future not just in Obama’s speeches but in fact. America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline.

Read the full article →

Reagan Looms Over Contentious Debate On Both Sides

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Ronald Reagan might as well be sitting in on the troubled debt talks, so frequently is his memory invoked by both sides. But for vastly different reasons. Conservative Republicans praise the 40th president’s steely advocacy for smaller government and lower taxes. President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies praise Reagan because, they say, he was the sublime compromiser, willing to work with Democrats such as House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill of Massachusetts to forge landmark tax and Social Security deals and willing to raise the federal debt ceiling so the government could keep borrowing to pay its bills. Can both be true? In fact, both camps are experiencing a touch of Reagan amnesia. Debt talks between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner came to a grinding halt Friday night when Boehner abruptly broke them off, raising new uncertainties that a deal could be struck to avert a threatened government default. Reagan did push through deep, across-the-board cuts in tax rates in his first year of the presidency in 1981, fulfilling a campaign promise. But the following year he signed the largest peace-time tax increase in U.S. history, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. He raised taxes in every succeeding year of his presidency except the last. As California governor, Reagan also signed the biggest tax increase in state history. “There was a consistency to Reagan on taxes, which was basically that he cut them when he could, but raised them when he had to. He was not dogmatic on this issue, as his current day followers seem to think,” said economist Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House and a top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. Bartlett noted that Reagan’s tax increases took back about half of his signature 1981 tax cut. When he left office in 1989, federal taxes accounted for 18.4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, compared with the 18 percent average for the two decades before he took office. By contrast, tax revenues are forecast to be just 14.4 per cent of GDP in 2011. Some tea party-courting Republicans cite Reagan’s low-tax, small-government mantra as they insist they won’t support any increase in the government’s borrowing power past Aug. 2, unless significant budget cuts are made and taxes kept constant. Yet during Reagan’s two terms, he presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling. He even publicly scolded Congress for playing hardball politics with the debt limit and bringing the nation “to the edge of default before facing its responsibility.” That’s a passage the White House and congressional Democrats are now fond of recycling to their advantage. Obama has been paying new homage to the former Republican president he once called transformative as he remains locked in a standoff with Republicans. “Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill and Democrats to cut spending, raise revenues and reform Social Security,” Obama noted a few days ago. “That kind of cooperation should be the least you expect from us.” In a recent exchange with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., Obama complained that House Republicans weren’t giving an inch on raising taxes and were frustrating compromise efforts. According to Cantor, Obama ended the meeting saying, “Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting here?” It was an apparent suggestion that Reagan would have been more accommodating or less likely to engage in political trench warfare. The facts: The big 1980s domestic-policy deals cited by Obama happened at a time when there were more politically moderate members in both parties than in these highly polarized times, and when congressional leaders had more flexibility in finding common ground. It’s true that Reagan did not engage as much in the day-to-day bargaining. The big bipartisan agreements of the Reagan years were mostly cobbled together by O’Neill’s forces and moderate Republican leaders such as Sens. Howard Baker of Tennessee and Bob Dole of Kansas, and Rep. Barber Conable of New York. Still, Reagan and O’Neill clearly liked each other and enjoyed socializing. Although House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, played golf with Obama and had tried for a “grand bargain” compromise with him, their relationship does not seem to be anywhere near at the same comfort level as that between Reagan and O’Neill, two gregarious Irish-Americans. That may have become clear late Friday, when the talks collapsed, with each side blaming the other. Looking back to the 1980s, with the exception of a few major deals like on Social Security, the day-to-day dealings between the Reagan administration and O’Neill were largely contentious and partisan. Yet that Social Security agreement remains a model for those who yearn for less partisan times now. Threats of approaching economic chaos were as much in the air in early 1983 as they are now, as Social Security was fast running out of money and benefit checks were at risk. The eventual deal that rescued the program involved changing Social Security tax-rate schedules, imposing income taxes on the benefits of higher-income individuals, and raising the retirement age in steps to 67 for those born after 1960. It was put in play by a bipartisan commission headed by Republican economist Alan Greenspan, later to become chairman of the Federal Reserve. It was fine-tuned by a high-level group of nine House and Senate members. That bipartisan group met in secret locations for weeks to hammer out the final details, remembers Paul Light, who at the time was a congressional fellow with Conable, the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee and one of the negotiators. The talks coincided with the Washington Redskins’ march to the team’s Super Bowl victory over the Miami Dolphins in January 1983. “The Gang of Nine could actually sit around the table and say, `Go Redskins.’ That just created camaraderie that I don’t see now,” said Light, now a public policy professor at New York University. “And the compromise lasted 30 years, which isn’t bad.” So in the end, how can Reagan be both a hero to Republicans for arguing against tax increases – and to Democrats for agreeing to them? “That’s what made him such an incredibly good politician,” said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution. Reagan was a master of blurring distinctions with compelling rhetoric, Hess suggested. “People often see in him what they want to see, or what they are looking for. And that has been certainly true of other great politicians in their time as well.”

Read the full article →

Corporate Profits Boom In Second Quarter, While Jobs Remain A Bust

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Strong second-quarter earnings from McDonald’s, General Electric and Caterpillar on Friday are just the latest proof that booming profits have allowed Corporate America to leave the Great Recession far behind. But millions of ordinary Americans are stranded in a labor market that looks like it’s still in recession. Unemployment is stuck at 9.2 percent, two years into what economists call a recovery. Job growth has been slow and wages stagnant. “I’ve never seen labor markets this weak in 35 years of research,” says Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. Wages and salaries accounted for just 1 percent of economic growth in the first 18 months after economists declared that the recession had ended in June 2009, according to Sum and other Northeastern researchers. In the same period after the 2001 recession, wages and salaries accounted for 15 percent. They were 50 percent after the 1991-92 recession and 25 percent after the 1981-82 recession. Corporate profits, by contrast, accounted for an unprecedented 88 percent of economic growth during those first 18 months. That’s compared with 53 percent after the 2001 recession, nothing after the 1991-92 recession and 28 percent after the 1981-82 recession. What’s behind the disconnect between strong corporate profits and a weak labor market? Several factors: — U.S. corporations are expanding overseas, not so much at home. McDonalds and Caterpillar said overseas sales growth outperformed the U.S. in the April-June quarter. U.S.-based multinational companies have been focused overseas for years: In the 2000s, they added 2.4 million jobs in foreign countries and cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States, according to the Commerce Department. — Back in the U.S., companies are squeezing more productivity out of staffs thinned by layoffs during the Great Recession. They don’t need to hire. And they don’t need to be generous with pay raises; they know their employees have nowhere else to go. — Companies remain reluctant to spend the $1.9 trillion in cash they’ve accumulated, especially in the United States, which would create jobs. They’re unconvinced that consumers are ready to spend again with the vigor they showed before the recession, and they are worried about uncertainty in U.S. government policies. “Lack of clarity on a U.S. deficit-reduction plan, trade policy, regulation, much needed tax reform and the absence of a long-term plan to improve the country’s deteriorating infrastructure do not create an environment that provides our customers with the confidence to invest,” Caterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman said. Caterpillar said second-quarter earnings shot up 44 percent to $1 billion– though that still disappointed Wall Street. General Electric’s second-quarter earnings were up 21 percent to $3.8 billion. And McDonald’s quarterly earnings increased 15 percent to $1.4 billion. Still, the U.S. economy is missing the engines that usually drive it out of a recession. Carl Van Horn, director of the Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, says the housing market would normally revive in the early stages of an economic recovery, driving demand for building materials, furnishings and appliances — creating jobs. But that isn’t happening this time. And policymakers in Washington have chosen to focus on cutting federal spending to reduce huge federal deficits instead of spending money on programs to create jobs: “If we want the recovery to strengthen, we can’t be doing that,” says Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group that focuses on how government programs affect the poor and middle class. For now, corporations aren’t eager to hire or hand out decent raises until they see consumers spending again. And consumers, still paying down the debts they ran up before the recession, can’t spend freely until they’re comfortable with their paychecks and secure in their jobs. Said Van Horn: “I don’t think there’s an easy way out.”

Read the full article →

This Year’s Total Bank Failures Rises

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Regulators on Friday shut down two small banks in Florida and one in Colorado, bringing to 58 the number of U.S. bank failures this year, well behind last year’s pace. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. seized Southshore Community Bank in Apollo Beach, Fla., LandMark Bank of Florida in Sarasota, Fla., and Bank of Choice in Greeley, Colo. Southshore Community Bank had about $46.3 million in assets and $45.3 million in deposits. LandMark Bank had about $275 million in assets and $246.7 million in deposits. That lifts to nine the number of lenders to collapse this year in Florida. American Momentum Bank, based in Tampa, Fla., agreed to assume all of the deposits from the two banks and to buy essentially all of their assets. In Colorado, Bank of Choice had roughly $1.07 billion in assets and $924.9 million in deposits. It is the fifth bank to fail this year in Colorado. Bank Midwest, N.A., based in Kansas City, Mo., agreed to assume all of Bank of Choice’s deposits and buy roughly $853 million of its assets. The failures are expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $331.4 million, combined. Southshore Community Bank had two branches, LandMark Bank of Florida had six, and Bank of Choice had 17. The pace of bank failures has slowed this year as lenders work their way through piles of bad debt. A slow, but improving U.S. economy also has helped stem the number of bank casualties. By July 23 of last year, regulators had closed 103 banks. In all of 2010 regulators seized 157 banks, the most in a year since the savings-and-loan crisis two decades ago. The FDIC has said 2010 likely marked the peak for bank failures from the Great Recession. There were 140 bank failures in 2009, costing the insurance fund about $36 billion. The failures last year cost around $21 billion, a lower price tag because the banks involved were smaller on average. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force; only three were closed in 2007. From 2008 through 2010, bank failures cost the fund $76.8 billion. The deposit insurance fund fell into the red in 2009. With failures slowing, the FDIC’s deficit narrowed in the first quarter of this year; it stood at about $1 billion as of March 31. Depositors’ money – insured up to $250,000 per account – is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. That insurance cap was made permanent in the financial overhaul law enacted last July.

Read the full article →

10 States With The Highest Unemployment Rates: BLS

July 23, 2011

Job creation in the United States has been weak, at best, in recent months. And for those states most devastated by the financial crisis, that truth truth has been particularly devastating. Indeed, the degree by which the unemployment crisis has affected communities varies across the country, with states like South Carolina and Florida particularly feeling the heat. Of them all, though, no state has a higher rate than Nevada, currently at 12.4 percent, according to a report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday. Nevada’s fall from grace has been hard and fast. Devastated by the thunderous bust of the housing crisis, Nevada’s tourism has also suffered mightily, tumbling 11.9 percent at the onset of the recession, the Las Vegas Sun then reported. Other particularly hard-hit states include mega-states, like California with its 11.8 percent unemployment rate, and tiny Rhode Island, which currently has an unemployment rate of 10.8 percent. For both those states, hard times didn’t arrive alongside the financial crisis. According to the Seattle Times , Rhode Island has been losing jobs since as early as 2006. In California, on the other hand, many have yet to recover from the bursting of the 1990s tech bubble. The following are the ten states with the highest unemployment rates:

Read the full article →

U.S. Businesses, Wall Street Prepare For Possibility Of Downgrade, Default

July 23, 2011

NEW YORK (Emily Flitter and Jennifer Ablan) – American businesses, from Wall Street banks to major industrial corporations, are preparing contingency plans for a pair of once-unthinkable events: the United States defaulting on its debt and the loss of the nation’s top AAA credit rating. While most bankers, investors and executives still cannot imagine that politicians in Washington could be reckless enough to let the government run out of money to pay its bills on August 2, they can’t guarantee that the game of chicken that has been played in recent weeks won’t go awfully wrong. Lawmakers and President Barack Obama need to agree to raise the current $14.3 trillion legal borrowing limit by that date to avert a default but the decision is being held hostage to arguments between Republicans and Democrats about how to cut the U.S. budget deficit. And on Friday evening, the prospects of an agreement suddenly dimmed when top U.S. Republican, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, broke off talks with Obama, saying they had become futile because the U.S. President was demanding an increase in taxes. It all means that just as companies once formulated expensive backup Y2K plans just in case computer systems couldn’t recognize the date Jan 1, 2000, investors are devising ways to cope with financial markets pandemonium if the worst happens and the government of the world’s biggest economy runs out of cash. Ringing in their ears are dire warnings from the guardians of the nation’s financial well-being – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said only last week that a default would be “calamitous.” In some cases, bankers are delaying their summer holidays, while companies are making sure they have plenty of access to cash, and investors are being told to hedge their portfolios, with gold one favored asset for that. “We’ve to some degree taken on a defensive posture. We are now at 10 percent cash with so much uncertainty. In April, we were at 2 percent,” said Keith Wirtz, chief investment officer at Fifth Third Asset Management, with $18 billion in assets. At Morgan Stanley in New York it is all hands on deck at a time when many traders might otherwise be expected to be off to the beaches and the lavish mansions of The Hamptons, a very short helicopter ride from the city. “I can tell you that we don’t have any empty seats on the floor,” said Jim Caron, global head of interest rate strategy at Morgan Stanley in New York. “That will absolutely be the case the week of August 2nd,” he added. “Even with summer, no one is out of here at 4:30.” Many are dogged by flashbacks to the financial chaos in September 2008 after the Lehman Brothers collapse, and the failure of lawmakers to pass legislation to authorize a $700 billion government bailout of the banks, which sent markets into a tailspin. General Electric Co (GE.N), which was hit badly by those events, has boosted its cash holdings and cut its long-term debt in the past three years to put it in a better position to withstand such events. The largest U.S. conglomerate now holds $91 billion in cash on its books and has $40 billion in short-term debt, compared with the $16 billion in cash and $90 billion in short-term debt it had three years ago. “The main thing that we’ve done and it’s not specifically for the discussion going on in the U.S. about raising the debt ceiling or the European issue, is we just have dramatically increased our liquidity,” said Chief Financial Officer Keith Sherin, in an interview. “It’s part of our stress test that we do with our team and our regulatory and board members to be able to operate the company in the event of a significant external disruption.” Industrial equipment giant Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) is more worried about the impact on the confidence of its customers of Washington’s debt and deficit arguments as it is about its own resilience, according to its Chief Financial Officer Ed Rapp. He said the company has very diversified funding sources and strong cash flow. “I think we’re in a good position in the event you get some disruption for a period of time.” For investors it is all about hedging risk to a greater extent than normal, which means assets that will retain their value if the dollar, U.S. stocks and U.S. government bonds head south. John Taylor, chief executive officer of the $8-billion currency hedge fund FX Concepts, said he believes gold, which is close to a record having surged over $1600 an ounce on Friday, will trade higher for another two to three months. DOWNGRADE The second previously implausible event — a one-notch downgrade in the United States government’s credit rating — is quite possible even if the ceiling is raised in the next 11 days. At least some of the biggest fund managers can’t say they weren’t warned. This week, the head of Standard & Poor’s sovereign ratings group, John Chambers, has gone on a so-called roadshow, meeting with major money managers and pension funds including California State Teachers’ Retirement System in California, to discuss the agency’s ratings outlook on the United States. CalSTRS holds $7.87 billion in U.S. Treasuries as of June 20. “I left the meeting thinking, ‘Yes, we will be downgraded,’” a fixed-income portfolio manager at a major investment firm in one of the meetings told Reuters on Thursday. “I think S&P is just trying to front-run and get us prepared.” The Obama administration has grown increasingly frustrated with S&P, accusing it of changing the goalposts in its downgrade warnings. In telephone calls to top S&P officials, the Obama administration has asked why the ratings agency keeps shortening its timeframe for long-term deficit reduction, according to sources familiar with the discussions. S&P says the criticism is “erroneous. INSURANCE Treasury traders are trying to set themselves up to guard against heavy losses in the event of a spike in yields that could — in some views — follow a U.S. downgrade. They’re also positioning themselves to make a little money if the U.S. does default and other investors call in insurance protection against their U.S. bonds. In the repo market, a place where investment banks and companies can get overnight cash loans in exchange for Treasury bills used as collateral, traders were awaiting word from securities exchanges, including CME Group, the largest U.S. futures exchange operator, and ICE U.S. Trust, on possible cuts to the value of Treasury securities used as repo collateral. None of the exchanges that handle repo trades have detailed their plans yet, but Jim Binder, a spokesman for OCC, the sole clearinghouse for U.S. stock options. said his organization was waiting to see how the market reacted to a downgrade. “Until we start to see that actual volatility, it’s still an academic exercise, not a jump into action,” he said. Bernanke and New York Fed President William Dudley met Friday with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to discuss the implications if the debt ceiling is not raised. On Wednesday, top Fed policymaker Charles Plosser said that the central bank is actively preparing for the possibility of a default. The president of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank said the U.S. central bank has for the past few months been working closely with Treasury, ironing out what to do if the world’s biggest economy runs out of cash. “We are in contingency planning mode,” Plosser told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday. “We are all engaged. … It’s a very active process,” he said in the most extensive comments yet on preparations for a default from a U.S. official. Plosser said there were very difficult questions to grapple with. For example, the Fed lends to banks at the discount window against good collateral. But what happens if U.S. Treasuries no longer fit that bill? “Do we treat them as if they didn’t default, in which case we would be saying we are pretending it never happened? Or do we treat them as if they defaulted and don’t lend against them?” Plosser said. “Those are more policy questions.” The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Treasury market’s main trade group, is helping securities’ firms’ back offices tweak their systems to prepare for possible missed interest payments on Treasuries or a debt downgrade. “We are working with our members, particularly on the operations side but in other areas as well, to identify any areas that may benefit from revised conventions/practice recommendations under various scenarios, but, there has been no great plan in place as this was never envisioned,” said Rob Toomey, a managing director at SIFMA and the organization’s associate general counsel. Some market participants can hardly contemplate what a default would be like. One trader at a primary dealer said: “outright default would be Armageddon. It would fundamentally alter the landscape globally.” He said the New York Fed had not reached out to his firm to make contingency plans. “I think that is a very difficult conversation to have and you’re probably not going to get a wide range of opinion on that,” he said. The market’s favored index of fear, the CBOE Volatility Index .VIX, has been at a subdued level, though after Friday’s breakdown that might not continue. It’s just above 17, which is in line with its recent range. If it rises above 20 and approaches 30, it would suggest investors were getting sufficiently nervous about market gyrations to take out more protection against losses. “Right now there’s just a minimal chance of there being no deal, but never say never,” said Dan McMahon, director of equity trading at Raymond James in New York, who was speaking before the Boehner announcement. “If there was a default, good lord, we’d fall 5 to 10 percent right off the bat,” he said of major stock indices. “It would be like October 1987, but it really doesn’t even warrant talking about right now.” (Reporting by Emily Flitter, Jennifer Ablan and David Gaffen; Additional reporting by Ryan Vlastelica, Richard Leong and Nick Zieminski in New York, Ann Saphir in Chicago and Scott Malone in Boston; Editing by Martin Howell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Canada sells its stake in Chrysler for USD140m

July 23, 2011

Canada sells its stake in Chrysler for USD140m

Read the full article →

Chinese textile output grows 30% in H1

July 23, 2011

Chinese textile output grows 30% in H1

Read the full article →

US Seneca Foods, Allens plan merger

July 23, 2011

US Seneca Foods, Allens plan merger

Read the full article →

Calista Corp. to shut down Alaska Newspaper

July 23, 2011

Calista Corp. to shut down Alaska Newspaper

Read the full article →

No End In Sight As Obama Restarts Debt Ceiling Talks

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and congressional leaders are scrambling to find a way forward on a debt deal after House Speaker John Boehner threw negotiations into crisis by walking out on them with less than two weeks left to avert a potentially catastrophic default. A visibly frustrated Obama called Boehner, R-Ohio, to come back to the White House Saturday morning along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Reid’s counterpart Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. “We have run out of time and they are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default,” the president told reporters at a hastily scheduled press conference Friday night. Boehner accepted the invitation even while arguing that Obama bore the blame for the collapse of talks. “It’s the president who walked away from his agreement and demanded more money at the last minute,” Boehner said. “And the only way to get that extra revenue was to raise taxes.” The political theater played out even as the Aug. 2 deadline drew ever nearer. Barring action by then, the Treasury will be unable to pay its bills, and the economic fallout could send interest rates up, threaten the fragile U.S. recovery and send shock waves around the globe. Yet the deadline pressure has brought the parties arguably no closer to a solution, even though all involved insist they do not want a default. Underscoring the uncertainty, for the first time since talks began Obama declined to offer assurances, when asked, that default would be avoided – although moments later he said he was confident of that outcome. Obama said that Boehner left a deal on the table that was better for Republicans than for Democrats since spending cuts totaling $2.6 trillion outweighed new tax revenue of $1.2 trillion, and he said he was losing confidence that the underlying deficit problems will be dealt with even if the debt ceiling is raised. “I’ve been left at the altar now a couple of times,” Obama said wryly. Still, aides on both sides said agreement had been reached on two highly controversial changes. One would raise the age of eligibility of Medicare gradually from 65 to 67 for future beneficiaries, while the other would slow the increase in cost-of-living raises in Social Security checks. Given that accord, it seemed likely those agreements would be among many carrying over to the broader meeting Saturday morning and beyond. Even by the recent standards of divided government, Boehner’s decision triggered an extraordinary evening Friday as first the Democratic president and then the Republican speaker maneuvered for political position on an issue of enormous national import. Unspoken, yet unmistakable in all the brinkmanship was the 2012 election campaign, still 18 months away, with the White House and both houses of Congress at stake. Obama devoted his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to the impasse, calling on Republicans to make a deal. “We can come together for the good of the country and reach a compromise; we can strengthen our economy and leave for our children a more secure future,” the president said. “Or we can issue insults and demands and ultimatums at each another, withdraw to our partisan corners and achieve nothing.” Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, pressed the Republicans’ sharply opposing view in his party’s weekly address. “If we’re going to avoid any type of default and downgrade – if we’re going to resume job creation in America – the president and his allies need to listen to the people and work with Republicans to cut up the credit cards once and for all,” he said. Private, sometimes-secret negotiations had veered uncertainly for weeks, generating reports as late as Thursday that the two sides were possibly closing in on an agreement to slash spending. That triggered a revolt among Democrats who expressed fears the president was giving away too much in terms of cuts to Medicare and Social Security while getting too little by way of additional revenues. Obama said his only requirement for an agreement was legislation that provides the Treasury enough borrowing authority to tide the government over through the 2012 election. Boehner said he had little interest in a short-term extension either. At the same time Obama and Boehner sought to define the clash to their political advantage, their aides provided details of the abortive talks. Republican aides said Obama had upped his demand for higher taxes during the week. The aides said administration officials had tacitly agreed to $800 billion in new revenue over 10 years but that the White House backed away and wanted $400 billion more. Additionally, aides said the two sides were not able to bridge their differences over the triggers designed to force Congress to enact both tax reform and cuts to Medicare and other benefit programs by early next year. Both sides also were apart on the size of cuts for Medicaid, the health care program for poor and disabled Americans. Yet aides on both sides said the negotiations had yielded agreement for cuts of $250 billion from Medicare. ___ Associated Press writers David Espo, Ben Feller and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

European Week: Eyes on the aftermath of the summit and UK’s slowing growth!

July 23, 2011

European Week: Eyes on the aftermath of the summit and UK’s slowing growth!

Read the full article →

Asia next week… Eye on inflation and another on growth

July 23, 2011

Asia next week… Eye on inflation and another on growth

Read the full article →

U.S companies to continue on reporting its quarterly results this week, along with new economic fundamentals due to be released…

July 23, 2011

U.S companies to continue on reporting its quarterly results this week, along with new economic fundamentals due to be released…

Read the full article →

Preparing for Volatility and Short Term Trades Next Week

July 23, 2011

Preparing for Volatility and Short Term Trades Next Week

Read the full article →

Canadian Dollar at Risk on US Debt Impasse, Global Slowdown Fears

July 23, 2011

Canadian Dollar at Risk on US Debt Impasse, Global Slowdown Fears

Read the full article →

FOREX: Dollar Volatility Assured, Direction Absent Until Deficit Debate Resolved

July 23, 2011

FOREX: Dollar Volatility Assured, Direction Absent Until Deficit Debate Resolved

Read the full article →

Obama: Debt Ceiling Talks Fell Apart, Boehner Walked Out

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Social Security and Medicare may have been saved by the Tea Party’s refusal to accept President Barack Obama’s “grand bargain.” On Friday evening, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) walked away from the latest offer on the table by Obama, who is now summoning congressional leaders back to the White House on Saturday to figure out an eleventh-hour plan. The most viable option left for addressing the debt crisis, crafted by a bipartisan pair of Senate leaders, calls for much smaller cuts than the ones the president was willing to make. “No one wants to punt until default is the only other option,” a Democratic aide said Friday morning, before the Senate voted down a House offer that coupled a debt ceiling raise with a radical constitutional amendment. With the “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill out of the way, the lone obstacle to the debate’s conclusion was the talks between Boehner and Obama. The collapse in those grand bargain negotiations paradoxically move the broader debt ceiling negotiations closer to an end. And not a moment too soon: The White House has repeatedly said that July 22nd was the day by which Congress must have identified a path forward and begun work toward its passage. During a hastily called press briefing on Friday night, Obama said Boehner called him half an hour earlier and “indicated he was going to be walking away” from the compromise the two of them had been privately working on. A Democratic source told The Huffington Post that the president had called Boehner on Thursday evening to discuss the deal, but never heard back. The president tried again Friday afternoon. He finally got a return call at 5:30 p.m. The speaker, the source added, briefed the press about his decision to pull out of the deal before telling Obama. Speaking to a half-filled room of reporters, the president laid out just how dramatic the cuts to the social safety would have been in the deal he was trying to give Republicans. He said that he couldn’t believe Boehner walked away from the proposal he was offering: $3.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, smaller tax increases than those laid out in a bipartisan Senate plan and cuts to entitlement programs, something Democrats have pushed hard against. It also didn’t include revenues that Obama has insisted be in a final package, namely via closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry. “In other words, this was an extraordinarily fair deal,” Obama told reporters. “If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.” Obama: Boehner Withdraws From Debt Talks The president appeared genuinely flummoxed at the talks falling apart, saying there “doesn’t seem to be a capacity for [Republicans] to say yes.” He said he couldn’t believe Congress would “end up being that irresponsible” as to impose a “self-inflicted wound on the economy at a time when things are so difficult.” The New York Times also played a major part in the breakdown of talks between Boehner and the White House, reporting Thursday that the pair had moved very close to a deal. Both sides spent the rest of the day knocking down the report, while Senate Democrats fumed that the White House was caving. Privately, Senate Republicans charged Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) with orchestrating the debacle in an attempt to blow up the negotiations. The latest breakdown comes with about a week left until the Aug. 2 deadline, at which point the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills. Even if a default is averted, the protracted debate over raising the debt limit has left the U.S. government dangerously close to having its credit rating downgraded. In that event, Americans could expect a spike in interest rates on their credit cards, student loans and mortgages, with ramifications felt through the U.S. and global economy. “We have now run out of time,” the president said. He said he told congressional leaders to come back to the White House at 11 a.m. on Saturday “to explain to me how we are going to avoid default.” In a press conference later Friday night, Boehner accused the White House of having “moved the goal post” in negotiations. “The president demanded $400 billion more” in revenues when the two of them met Thursday, Boehner said, which is “nothing more than a tax increase on the American people.” He said he and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) were “very disappointed” by that demand. Boehner also sent a letter to House Republicans on Friday night explaining why he pulled out. “It has become evident that the White House is not serious about ending the spending binge that is destroying jobs and endangering our children’s future,” the GOP leader wrote. “A deal was never reached, and was never really close.” Boehner: No One Wants a Government Default At a briefing with reporters shortly after the president spoke, three senior White House officials laid out in detail their version of where the discussions fell apart. On the discretionary spending front, both sides had “identical offers,” said one of the officials. There would be $1.2 trillion in cuts over the course of ten years; $1 trillion in savings that would come from the draw-down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and $250 billion in savings in Medicare over the course of 10 years. Both sides had also agreed to attach a second piece of legislation, to be decided via the reconciliation budget process, that would have changed the retirement age for Medicare and changed the premium structure for Medicare Part B and D, while eliminating certain kinds of supplemental insurance. That bill would also contain changes to the way Social Security benefits were paid starting in 2015, with buffers put in to protect the lowest-income beneficiaries. There was, in addition, an informal agreement to try and extend Social Security’s solvency by an additional 75 years. How they would get there, however, remained a point of contention, with the president wanting a package of benefit and premium changes and Republicans focusing just on the benefit side. Unable to overcome that impasse, the two sides settled on vague language requiring them to meet that 75-year goal with future reforms. Where the two sides remained apart were on Medicaid cuts, with Republicans demanding tens of billions of dollars more in cuts than the president was comfortable making. White House officials described that difference as possible to overcome, however. The revenue component, in the end, remained unbridgeable. According to senior White House officials, each side had agreed to pass tax reform down the road that would result in $800 billion in revenue generated — the equivalent amount of savings that would be achieved if the top-end Bush tax cuts were simply allowed to expire. The administration wanted $400 billion in revenues on top of that. Republicans wanted zero, and in statements on Friday night GOP leadership aides insisted that the White House had changed the contours of the negotiations by making that demand in recent days. Obama offered to move off that $400 billion mark should GOP leadership lessen the type of cuts to entitlement programs they were demanding, White House aides said. In addition, the two sides could not figure out what to do if that aspirational tax reform package wasn’t achieved. The White House, at various points, proposed that the fallback option be the actual expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans demanded that they have something as bluntly frightening to Democrats. On Thursday, GOP leadership proposed that the penalty for inaction on tax reform be the repeal of the health care law’s individual mandate as well as the newly created Independent Advisory Board, which has been set up to find cost savings in Medicare. The White House balked at the offer. “Our view was we are not going to put the individual mandate in a deficit reduction package,” said a senior White House official. “But we were open to other ideas and there are any number of formulations for us.” All of which does not mean that the big deal is now dead. In fact, White House officials made it abundantly clear that they would welcome GOP leadership back into those discussions. “The speaker withdrew from the talks. This offer is still available,” said one of those officials. Boehner, at his briefing, said he didn’t think his relationship with Obama, or debt talks, are beyond repair. He said he planned to go to the White House on Saturday with other leaders. At this stage, the most viable proposal left on the table appears to be a far less ambitious debt plan put together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Their proposal, dubbed a “fallback option,” calls for $1.5 trillion in cuts, generates no new revenues and would put the onus fully on Obama to raise the debt limit, without Congress. It would also require the president to raise the debt ceiling in three increments over the next year and a half — a politically driven requirement by McConnell aimed at making Obama take responsibility for all debt ceiling hikes ahead of the 2012 elections. The other potential remedy — for the president to exercise the so-called constitutional option and invoke 14th Amendment powers to raise the debt ceiling himself — was ruled out, once again, during the White House briefing. “There are no options other than a legislative solution,” said a senior White House official. A Democratic staffer familiar with Hill negotiations concurred that the Reid-McConnell plan appears the most likely resolution. The fight now heads to the trenches: The leaderships of both parties will cobble together coalitions in the House and Senate that can move the package through. In both parties, the wings will generally oppose leadership and the center will hold, if history is any guide. The same coalition passed the Wall Street bailout and the Obama-GOP tax cuts. “We are prepared to compromise consistent with our values,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in response to the news. “Speaker Boehner’s ‘adult moment’ is long overdue. Our economy, our children’s education, our seniors’ security and our nation’s fiscal soundness require that we act without further delay.” Of course, there’s also the bipartisan Senate Gang of Six proposal, which would slash $3.7 trillion in deficits over 10 years and raise up to $1 trillion in new revenues through tax code reform. But that proposal has critics in both parties, and some say there isn’t enough time to turn it into a bill, send it to various committees for debate and pass it by Aug. 2. Frustrations are clearly high on both sides of the aisle. As Twitter blew up at the news of the Obama-Boehner talks crumbling, Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring chimed in with a tweet knocking Obama for making it seem as if Republicans thwarted the process. “As if there’s really a question whether President Obama threw a tantrum at the White House last week – same guy just appeared,” Dayspring tweeted. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said Congress had to move fast now that things have gotten hairy. He warned that the situation is nothing like the government shutdown narrowly averted earlier this year. “If you’ve got the speaker walking away from the White House — astonishing in and of itself — the next step is meltdown in the markets,” Welch said. “This is tempting the markets to turn, and when they do, it will be sudden and savage, then things will be out of control and the damage will be huge and irreversible.”

Read the full article →

Video: Chaplin Says AT&T Margins `Punished’ by IPhone Discounts

July 23, 2011

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Jonathan Chaplin, a director at Credit Suisse Holdings USA Inc., talks about competition between Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. for customers for Apple Inc.’s iPhone. Chaplin also discusses incoming Verizon Chief Executive Officer Lowell Adam. He speaks with Emily Chang and Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Debt Ceiling Deadline Might Be August 10, Not August 2: Report

July 23, 2011

For months, markets have been girding themselves against the possibility that the U.S. will reach the limits of its borrowing ability on August 2 and default on its debts. But researchers at Barclays Capital think the real deadline may not be until a week later. In a note published Friday, the Barclays Interest Rates Research team wrote that “the date on which the Treasury will run out of cash to pay its obligations might not be August 2; it might be around August 10 instead.” Why the change? The note explains that previous projections showed the Treasury running out of money on the morning of Wednesday, August 3. On that day, it was predicted, the Treasury would need to spend $32 billion, including $22 billion in Social Security payments — and it was only projected to have $30 billion at its disposal. That projection was made on July 13. But since then, the researchers say, the Treasury has taken in about $14 billion more than expected, and paid out about $1 billion less than expected. Hence, the deadline date might actually be August 10, a week later than previously believed. The August 2 deadline has never been set in stone. When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced in May that the federal debt limit had been reached, he said that the government could use “extraordinary measures” to extend borrowing authority until August 2 — and that this date could change “based on government receipts and other factors.” And as the Financial Times pointed out earlier this month, researchers at Nomura have already predicted that the Treasury won’t run out of funds until August 9. The August 10 date isn’t set in stone either; it’s just the prediction of one group of researchers. The Barclays team stress that “it is extremely difficult to be sure” how much money the Treasury will take in and pay out between now and August 2. And, they say, just because lawmakers might have until August 10 to devise a deal doesn’t mean they should wait that long. “The sooner policymakers come to a deal, the sooner this source of uncertainty will disappear,” they write. As of Friday evening, negotiations between President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner had broken down , with Boehner saying he would confer with Senate leaders directly. The president has called Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to the White House for an emergency meeting Saturday morning.

Read the full article →

Greece Debt Plan Doesn’t Solve Fundamental Problems

July 22, 2011

A deal struck by European leaders providing debt relief to Greece has soothed fears of a fresh crisis, but the nation’s ailing troubles — and by extension those of the rest of the continent — seem far from over. The fundamental problems remain, experts say. Namely, the Greek economy is in a recession, and a program of deep spending cuts enforced by outside powers hinders its prospects for growth. “The problem with Greece and a lot of the periphery is they’re not growing,” said Win Thin, global head of emerging markets strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman in New York. The plan handed down Thursday by leaders of the nations that share the euro provides a framework for allowing Greece to enter a so-called restrictive default — a move that, though risky, is seen as a way to usher the nation along a path to recovery. Stocks rallied on news of the plan, which pledges a second bailout for Greece. It also aims to calm fears by expanding the powers of a European rescue fund and by outlining an orderly way for Greek debt holders to accept lower payments in exchange for a solid guarantee of their investment. The European heads of state called their plan “far reaching” in a statement after their meeting in Brussels. But independent experts fear that the program, bold as it may be, does not solve the long-term problems facing Greece and the rest of Europe. Greece still struggles under a punishing mountain of debt, and markets continue to reflect anxiety that the scope of the crisis is larger than the European powers can manage. “We’re missing the big picture, which is: This isn’t a crisis for Greece, or for Ireland, or Portugal. It’s a crisis of the euro,” said Silvio Peruzzo, euro-area economist at Royal Bank of Scotland Group in London. “It buys time,” he said of the plan, but added that “the market will soon return to the idea that we need to discuss default again.” Thursday’s plan represents the culmination of a tense week for Europe, as the debt crisis that began in Greece appeared to be spreading across the continent. Interest rates on Italian government debt shot skyward, logging the largest spread in the history of the euro between Italian rates and the yields on relatively safe German debt, according to Bloomberg data . The crisis seemed to deepen Tuesday when Ireland’s debt was downgraded by Moody’s Investors Service, calling into question that country’s ability to survive financially without outside help. The costs of borrowing for all the weaker nations — Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece — were climbing to fresh highs, heaping pain on governments already struggling to get their books in order. Financial markets were sending a clear message: Policymakers would not be able to stem this growing crisis. And so policymakers responded. In addition to pledging an additional 109 billion euro bailout, this week’s plan lays out a menu of options for investors in Greek debt. These investors, largely banks and other institutions, have the option to extend the maturities of their bonds and accept lower payments. Banks can choose among different terms for this arrangement, explained the industry group Institute of International Finance . That technically counts as a default, and the rating agency Fitch said as much on Friday. But European leaders said they are prepared to guarantee Greek debt in order to protect banks and the broader private sector. But that will offer only a temporary fix, said Thin, of Brown Brothers Harriman. The “haircuts” under the new plan, in which investors accept less than their original debt contract stipulates, are not enough, he said. “They’ve treated the symptoms but not the underlying disease,” Thin said. “In order to get Greece, Ireland and Portugal on a sustainable debt trajectory you have to have what they call hard restructuring. That’s principal haircuts of 40, 50, 60 percent.” Moreover, debt markets still reflect anxiety over Europe’s weaker nations. Yields on Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Italian and Greek debt fell as the European leaders met, and kept falling when the plan was announced, reflecting a perception that the debt of those countries is less risky. But yields are still high, having fallen only to the levels of early July, Bloomberg data show. Greece, for instance, currently must shell out about 16.5 percent of money it borrows with a 10-year maturity. Ireland pays more than 12 percent on 10-year debt. Portugal pays more than 11.5 percent. Italy pays just under 5.5 percent, and Spain pays just under 5.8 percent. All of those values are historic highs. Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is helping to lead the rescue effort, admitted the current plan won’t be enough to address long-term issues. “There are other necessary steps to take,” she said at a news conference this week , “and not one spectacular result that will solve all problems.”

Read the full article →

Video: Scoble, Agrawal Discuss Merits, Outlook for Google+

July 22, 2011

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Bloggers Robert Scoble and Rocky Agrawal talk about Google Inc.’s online social-networking service, Google+. Scoble and Agrawal also discuss Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. They speak with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Debt Ceiling Talks Collapse

July 22, 2011

President Barack Obama said Friday night that House Speaker John Boehner was “walking away” from negotiations to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and avert financial catastrophe. Still, Obama said he was expecting congressional leaders from both parties at the White House Saturday morning. In a dramatic appearance in the White House briefing room Obama said it was up to the Republican leaders to explain to him how they intend to avoid the default that is threatened after Aug. 2. “I expect them to have an answer in terms of how they intend to get this thing done in the course of the next week. The American people expect action,” Obama said. Boehner, in a letter circulated to the House Republican rank and file, said he had withdrawn from the talks with Obama because “in the end, we couldn’t connect. He said he would turn instead to negotiations with leaders of the Senate, which is controlled by majority Democrats. The disconnect in the talks with the White House, Boehner said, was “not because of different personalities, but because of different visions for our country. The talks had veered uncertainly for weeks, generating reports as late as Thursday that the two sides were possibly closing in on an agreement to cut $3 trillion in spending and add as much as $1 trillion in possible revenue while increasing the government’s borrowing authority of $2.4 trillion. Check back here for the latest developments. What happens if the U.S. defaults? See the slideshow below.

Read the full article →

Businesses Can Help Their Employees Beat The Heat

July 22, 2011

NEW YORK — The searing heat this summer is giving small business owners a great opportunity to create some goodwill with their employees. When the heat index outside is 105, anything from a few commiserating words to a few hours off will go a long way toward helping workers feel appreciated. And maybe help you keep them when the job market gets better. Of course, in places like Southern California and Arizona, going to work when the temperature is above 90 or 100 is part of life. But in other parts of the country, such temperatures aren’t the norm and people struggle more to get through the work day. No matter what your climate is, you might want to consider ways to give your employees some comfort and a few breaks. BE SYMPATHETIC You’re probably as bothered by the heat as your staffers are. But, “it’s time for managers to say, `how are you doing with this awful heat,’ and to recognize that nerves are frayed,” says Beverly Kaye, an employee retention consultant in Sherman Oaks, Calif. Kaye says a few kind words and some understanding can lift a worker’s spirits. So can letting employees know that you appreciate the fact that it can be harder to get through the work day and still do a good job when everyone is so uncomfortable. This approach is particularly important if you have premises, like a factory or auto repair shop, that can’t be air conditioned. Your workers may really be suffering and would feel better if you show your human side. HELP YOUR WORKERS COOL OFF Are the only cold drinks on your premises in soda machines? And do employees have to pay for them? You might want to think about getting a refrigerator if you don’t already have one. And then go to a warehouse club retailer and stock up on bottles of water, iced tea and soda that everyone can help themselves to. It probably won’t break the bank and you’ll be creating a lot of goodwill. Kaye suggests bringing in ice cream. Or pizza – it may not cool anyone off, but it will lighten everyone’s mood. Depending on how big your staff is, it can get expensive. But, Kaye says, “do it, it’s going to come back in spades” in terms of loyalty from your staff. If your air conditioner should break down at the worst possible time, then you need to get fans in quickly. If you have a dress code, relax it so staffers can be as comfortable as possible until the AC is back. HOW ABOUT SUMMER FLEX TIME – AND TELECOMMUTING? If your business can stand a few lost hours of productivity, consider letting everyone go home early. Kaye suggests going even further, and offering staffers a day off. It may not be the company policy to have what Kaye calls “heat days.” But, she says, “which will you keep, the rules or the people?” You might also want to let staffers who work at a PC do their work from home. This can be essential if there’s a problem with the air conditioning in your company, or if you have a staffer who has health problems that are worsened by the heat. This all means being aware of what’s going on with your staff, and how they’re being affected by the heat wave. Here’s something else you can do: If staffers are running the air conditioner at home to keep their dogs cool, how about holding a “Bring Your Dog to Work Day?” That would let them keep their pets comfortable without running up a big electric bill. Chances are, everyone would get a kick from having the pooches around.

Read the full article →

Intra-GOP Wars Obstruct Path To Solution in Contentious Debate

July 22, 2011

WASHINGTON — What if they yield, even a little? Call it GOP Primary Fear. A major hurdle to breaking the federal debt-ceiling impasse is the worry by House Republicans that they will invite primary election challenges from the right if they give ground to Democrats on the issue of higher tax revenues. There’s even a verb for it: being “primaried.” The challenger would not be a Democrat. It would be a fellow Republican, in a spring or summer primary that most voters would ignore. That could leave the field mainly to ideological die-hards, often with tea party ties and little appetite for compromise. It’s the atmosphere that many House freshmen rode to victory last year, and that cost two GOP senators their party’s nomination. “They talk about it all the time,” said Mike McKenna, a Republican lobbyist who closely follows the House and politics. If the House cuts a deficit-reduction deal with President Barack Obama, he said, “you’re probably going to see a lot of leadership guys get primaried,” along with rank-and-file Republicans. “It could be an all-time high.” Such worries are a key reason the GOP-controlled House has refused so far to accept Obama’s debt-and-deficit overture, even though it includes concessions that many people never expected from a Democrat. It would cut spending by $3 trillion over 10 years, and slowly start to trim Social Security and Medicare benefits. But to get a package through the Democratic-controlled Senate, the deal also must include some version of revenue hikes, aimed mainly at the wealthy and generating up to $1 trillion over a decade. That’s the needle House Speaker John Boehner is trying to thread. He must persuade enough fellow Republicans to give just enough on higher revenues, or “tax hikes” – there will be a fierce fight, too, over definitions – to keep Senate Democrats from filibustering the bill to death. He also must reassure colleagues that they could survive primary challenges. Obama confronted the issue Friday, at a forum in Maryland. Many House districts, he said, are drawn to be “so solidly Republican or so solidly Democrat that a lot of Republicans in the House of Representatives, they’re not worried about losing to a Democrat. They’re worried about somebody on the right running against them because they compromised. So even if their instinct is to compromise, their instinct of self-preservation is stronger. And they say to themselves, `I don’t want a primary challenge.’ So that leads them to dig in.” Nearly all of Congress’ Republicans have pledged not to raise taxes, although lawmakers quibble about what that means. Many tea partyers say it bars any action that would lead directly to a net increase in tax revenues. The Senate is almost certain to reject that definition. Tea party activist Lee Bellinger recently urged colleagues to put lawmakers on notice “before the disease of Republican compromise infects Washington once again.” As early as mid-April, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler told The Hill newspaper he was “getting emails by the hour from people talking about primary challenges” to Republicans who seek budget deals with Democrats. Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker said Republican primaries are dominated by “the most ideological voters.” These party members, he said, “track votes and are unforgiving.” GOP pollster and consultant Wes Anderson said, “If we pass some deal that includes some form of tax increases_ even if we try really hard to couch it in `tax reform, closing loopholes,’ etc. – there are going to be a number of our folks, especially freshmen, who will face primaries. It’s just going to happen.” Anderson said Boehner’s top staffer is counting votes every day, asking “what kind of deal can we get without losing too many?” For Boehner, it’s not a question of reaching the minimum 218 votes needed to pass a bill in the House (or 217, given the two current vacant seats). If Obama endorses a compromise, it probably will draw scores of House Democrats’ votes. That would allow Boehner to lose 100 or so of his 240 Republicans, and still pass the measure. But if Boehner wants to remain speaker, he can hardly afford a bigger defection than that. He needs to find the political sweet spot, a compromise that can win the votes of 140 or so House Republicans and most of the Senate’s Democrats. McKenna estimates that about 40 pro-Boehner House Republicans are politically safe enough to vote for a compromise with no worries. Beyond that, he said, “80, 90, 100 are probably going to vote `yes’ on whatever comes out. And they will be exposed.” ___ Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Business Roundtable Celebrates Strengthened GOP Support On Trade Deals

July 22, 2011

WASHINGTON — A group of top CEOs celebrated Friday as a group of 12 Republican senators sent a letter to President Barack Obama announcing support for a key Democratic demand holding up three trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. Although the trade deals — which appear likely to send jobs abroad, reinforce corporate tax havens in Panama and threaten the safety of workers in Colombia — are unpopular with the public, they enjoy far more support in Congress, where the chief obstacle to passage has not been the terms of the deals, but the treatment of American workers who would be laid off from the resulting offshoring. The 12 Republican senators agreed to let a vote proceed on Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides training programs and other benefits to workers whose jobs are sent overseas under so-called free trade deals, increasing the chances that the trade deals will pass the Senate. But the group stopped short of saying they would actually vote in favor of the aid to laid-off workers, instead promising only that they would not filibuster the plan. In a press release accompanying the letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said the opposition to the filibuster would provide “more than enough votes” to ensure that TAA would pass the Senate. The Business Roundtable, which represents the top executives from the nation’s largest corporations, applauded the move. The leaders of multinational corporations view the trade deals as extremely profitable, and they had been concerned that the refusal to support laid off workers with tax dollars would block the potentially lucrative deals. “Our foreign competitors are gaining access to these important markets before us, and every day of delay puts American companies and their goods and services at a greater disadvantage,” Roundtable President John Engler said in a written statement. “Exports drive job creation and economic growth, both critically needed to strengthen the recovery.” Several Republicans, particularly in the House, have sought to eliminate TAA from the three pending agreements. The TAA program has long enjoyed bipartisan support and is viewed by unions as grossly inadequate to make up for other terms of the trade agreements strongly opposed by organized labor. Democrats have balked at approving the deals without at least providing some measure of assistance for affected workers. Blunt and his Republican colleagues are supporting TAA under a complex voting process that divorces the TAA vote from three other separate votes on each individual trade deal. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has urged a similar four-vote strategy in the lower chamber, where many Tea Party members oppose providing TAA benefits. The Business Roundtable said the Obama administration should now send the pacts to Congress for a vote. “After years of delay, it’s time to stop talking and start voting,” Roundtable President John Engler said in his statement.

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: Tax Reform Could Help Secure Financial System

July 22, 2011

In the deafening cacophony of voices in Washington on the debt ceiling, it is easy to miss a potentially more significant development. There is growing bipartisan interest in tax reform, including changing the corporate tax system to make it more sensible and a bulwark against financial sector instability.

Read the full article →

China-Based Spies Said To Be Behind IMF Hacking

July 22, 2011

Investigators probing the recent ransacking of International Monetary Fund computers have concluded the attack was carried out by cyber spies connected to China, according to two people close to the investigation.

Read the full article →

Rejected Dodd-Frank Rule Means Less Control For Shareholders

July 22, 2011

(Sarah N. Lynch) – A U.S. appeals court has rejected a new Securities and Exchange Commission rule intended to make it easier for shareholders to nominate directors to corporate boards. In a major blow to the SEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the SEC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the agency had failed to properly weigh the economic consequences. Friday’s ruling marks the first successful legal challenge to a provision in last year’s Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law which was intended to curb Wall Street excesses leading up to the global financial crisis. The SEC rule, which had been put on hold pending the outcome of this case, would have required companies to include a shareholder candidate on corporate ballots known as proxies — provided that the nominating shareholders held at least 3 percent of the voting power in the corporate stock for three years. SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro had pushed for a rule on proxy access since the early days of her tenure at the SEC, saying the rule would give long-term shareholders greater voice by making it easier for them to nominate directors to the boards of the companies they own. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, who filed the lawsuit challenging the rule, feared it would give minority shareholders too much power and could have cost companies millions of dollars in contested board elections. To fight the rule, they hired Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and the son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. WAKE-UP CALL FOR REGULATORS Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who wrote the opinion for the court, said the SEC “inconsistently and opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule; failed adequately to quantify the certain costs or to explain why those costs could not be quantified; neglected to support its predictive judgments; contradicted itself; and failed to respond to substantial problems raised by commenters.” Although the court threw out the rule, the SEC could try to revive it. To do so, however, the agency would have to start the rule-writing process from scratch. Scalia, in a statement to reporters, said the court’s ruling on Friday will “likely to give the SEC serious pause before revisiting proxy access.” “We are reviewing the decision and considering our options,” said SEC spokesman Kevin Callahan. David Hirschmann, the president and CEO of the chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, said the court’s decision should serve “as a reminder” to all federal financial regulators as they work to implement hundreds of new rules required by Dodd-Frank. “They have an obligation to do a cost-benefit (analysis) and they have an obligation to look at alternatives,” he told Reuters in an interview. “Ultimately, we need to implement regulations in a way that achieves a clear purpose and in a way that maximizes the benefits while minimizing the costs.” SEC’s TROUBLED TRACK RECORD This is not the first time the SEC has lost a court challenge to its rule-making procedures in the D.C. circuit. The SEC previously lost to the chamber on a case challenging a rule on mutual fund director independence. It also lost in 2009 on a rule that would have regulated indexed annuities as securities. All of those challenges were successfully argued by Scalia. The SEC had anticipated business groups would sue over proxy access after the groups expressed fears it would give activist shareholders, including union pension funds, undue influence over corporate boards, and would trample state laws on corporate governance. To protect them, Congress granted the agency authority to write proxy access rules in Dodd-Frank. That provision, however, does not protect the SEC from challenges to its rule-making process. Most experts felt the SEC faltered in its defense of the rule at an April hearing, with the judges appearing skeptical about the agency’s estimates for how many contested board elections would result. Nevertheless, supporters of the rule had still hoped it would prevail. “The court’s decision is deeply disappointing to long-term shareholders,” said Ann Yerger, the executive director for the Council of Institutional Investors. “We will continue to advocate for proxy access and will encourage the SEC to promptly address the court’s concerns.” (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, editing by Matthew Lewis) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Firefox Add-On Warns Surfers Away From Murdoch Sites

July 22, 2011

In the continuing backlash against the Murdoch Empire, a Firefox add-on has just been released that warns a user when they arrive at a website owned by NewsCorp or any subsidiaries, such as Fox News or the NY Post. Murdoch Alert was just created on Mozilla today, and the designer gave News Junkie Post an exclusive first look at it.

Read the full article →

Banks Increasingly Use Payday Loans Despite Crackdown On Predatory Lending

July 22, 2011

Two years after the recession officially ended and one year after the creation of a landmark financial law meant to prevent another financial crisis, predatory lending practices remain a part of mainstream American banking, a new report from the Center for Responsible Lending shows. On Thursday, the CRL, a nonprofit research organization, published a report saying that some mainstream banks are offering payday loans — short-term, high-interest loans that can take customers months to pay off. Payday loans have long been offered by non-banking establishments, such as shops that cash checks and money orders. But in recent years, well-known banks have started offering them too. Here’s how a payday loan works: You, the customer, borrow money from the bank. The bank lends it to you at a high APR, or annual interest rate. When your next paycheck comes, the bank repays itself out of your direct deposit — taking the loan, plus whatever interest the bank charges. It doesn’t matter if you don’t have enough money in your account; the bank goes ahead and repays itself anyway, even if this triggers overdraft fees. Often customers end up having to take out another loan to get by until the next paycheck — and so the cycle continues. The CRL report isn’t the first indication that mainstream banks have adopted this practice, which is sometimes called a “ direct deposit advance ” or a “checking account advance.” In 2010, Bloomberg reported that banks including Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp and Fifth Third Bancorp were offering services called “checking advance products” — which functioned very similarly to payday loans — as a way to recoup billions in lost revenue after new overdraft-fee regulations were passed. Wells Fargo, Fifth Third and U.S. Bancorp were also among the banks named in a 2009 piece for the Twin Cities Star Tribune . That article, by Chris Serres, noted that in 2003, John Hawke, then head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, spoke strongly against payday loans and warned such lenders to “ stay the hell away from national banks .” According to the Center for Responsible Lending report, the average 10-day payday loan from a bank carries a 365 percent APR. The one-month payday loan has an interest rate of 120 percent — significantly higher than the average interest rate on a credit card, which is only 13.1 percent, the report notes. Social Security recipients, whose financial situations can be especially precarious, make up nearly a quarter of payday-loan borrowers, according to the report. In addition to offering payday-style loans directly, banks have also been accused of financing non-banking establishments, like the check-cashing shops, that make payday loans available . In 2010, a report from National People’s Action and the Public Accountability Initiative linked payday loan companies like Advance America, First Cash and EZCORP to financiers including JP Morgan, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. According to the Center for Public Integrity, payday lending is one of the practices that consumer groups would most like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which launched on Thursday , to address.

Read the full article →

First California Appoints Chief Banking Officer

July 22, 2011

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA–(Marketwire – Jul 22, 2011) – First California Financial Group, Inc. ( NASDAQ : FCAL ) today announced that Gilbert J. Dalmau has been appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Banking Officer of First California Bank.

Read the full article →

Genesis Electronics Group, Inc. Appoints New CEO

July 22, 2011

HOLLYWOOD, FL–(Marketwire – Jul 22, 2011) – Genesis Electronics Group, Inc. ( OTCBB : GEGI ) announced that Edward C. Dillon resigned as President and CEO of the Company on July 19, 2011. The Board of Directors appointed M. Thomas Makmann as Chief Executive Officer effective July 20, 2011. Mr. Dillon will remain as co-chairmen of the Board of Directors with Mr. Raymond Purdon. Mr. Dillon served as its President and CEO since May 2008, has helped the Company develop its business and has been instrumental in the Company’s fund raising.

Read the full article →