client

Cathay Pacific, Air France Embrace Airbags Ahead of Tighter Safety Rules

June 9, 2010

By Cornelius Rahn June 9 (Bloomberg) — Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and Air France-KLM Group have begun introducing seatbelt-mounted airbags in their economy-class cabins as authorities tighten regulations aimed at reducing the risk of fatalities in plane crashes. All aircraft built in the U.S. since October must conform to standards designed to keep passengers conscious through an impact involving deceleration at 16 times the force of gravity so that they can escape any subsequent fire. The same rules will be introduced in Europe by the end of next year, European Aviation Safety Agency spokesman Jeremie Teahan said. While many seats comply with the so-called 16g rule without needing airbags, which are installed in about 2 percent of seats, manufacturer AmSafe Inc. predicts they’ll become standard by 2020 amid heightened awareness of safety issues. The devices cost about $1,200 apiece, versus $25 for a regular seatbelt. “The problem with our economy seats is that they have rigid shells and a head impact is more difficult to handle,” Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer Tony Tyler said in an interview in Berlin. “Therefore we need airbags.” About 80 percent of plane crashes are survivable, and a study of 25 impact-related accidents by the U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in 2005 concluded that stronger seats and better restraints could have averted 62 fatalities. The world’s airlines have a total capacity of 2.8 million seats, according to Dunstable, England-based OAG, which gathers statistics on the global aviation industry. Jumbo Exempt Safety rules for seats introduced in the U.S. in 1988 and Europe in 1992 applied only to new models, exempting planes including the Boeing Co. 747 jumbo jet and Airbus SAS A320 that were introduced earlier but are still in production today. Under the stricter rules, all new-build planes must be 16g compliant. AmSafe’s airbags are stored in the seatbelt and inflate within 90 milliseconds of a crash, expanding up and away from the passenger to accommodate head movement in all directions. The Phoenix-based company, which also makes 95 percent of all aircraft seatbelts, introduced the technology in 2001 and says it has been sold to more than 50 carriers including Singapore Airlines Ltd. , US Airways Group Inc., Emirates, Japan Airlines Corp. and Swiss International Air Lines AG. Airbags are required for standard berths where there is no seat in front to cushion against an impact, such as those facing bulkheads, galleys and lavatories, and for premium-class layouts where seats are angled to face into the aisle, Bill Hagan , the president of AmSafe ’s aviation unit, said in an interview. Fixed Back Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific became the first carrier to equip whole planes — Airbus A340s and Boeing 777s — with airbags, allowing it to use a “shell seat” design from BE Aerospace Inc. that didn’t otherwise comply with regulations, Hagan said. The berth, introduced in coach class in July 2008, has a fixed back that doesn’t move even when reclined, helping to protect personal space, according to the Cathay website. Air France-KLM, Europe’s biggest airline, has fitted airbags after installing the same seats in the premium-economy cabins of its 777 jetliners, spokeswoman Brigitte Barrand said by telephone. About 2,200 berths are involved, Hagan said. Disadvantages Air France considered using airbags in the past but concluded that the potential disadvantages of accidental inflation outweighed the benefit of greater cushioning, according to CEO Pierre-Henri Gourgeon . Cathay Pacific closed down 2.8 percent at HK$15.40 in Hong Kong, reducing the stock’s gain this year to 6.4 percent. Air France-KLM was trading 0.6 percent lower at 9.50 euros as of 10:48 a.m. in Paris and has declined 14 percent this year. Swiss International was also required to fit airbags in the business-class seats of its A330-300s, which entered service in April last year, spokeswoman Sonja Ptassek said. The unit of Deutsche Lufthansa AG will have 10 of the planes by March. Hagan says the client base for AmSafe’s airbags has almost doubled from a year ago and that the company is in talks with “major North American carriers” on equipping entire planes with the product, with deals likely to close in 2011. “The real driver until now has been the premium segment,” Hagan said. “But at a certain point you gain a critical footprint where airlines consider extending airbag use across the plane. I believe this point will be reached next year.” Still, the International Air Transport Association , which represents airlines worldwide, says it isn’t sure about the wider application of the technology beyond specific cases. “We’re investigating whether airbags make sense,” Guenther Matschnigg , IATA’s senior vice president for safety, operations and infrastructure, said in an interview. “We need to have numbers before we take any stance.” IATA will probably make recommendations to the European Aviation Safety Agency later this year, Matschnigg said in Berlin where, like Tyler and Gourgeon, he was attending the group’s annual meeting. “If anyone can prove that airbags make a difference, we’ll be the first to recommend them,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Cornelius Rahn in Berlin via crahn2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Elisabeth Rhyne: Why are microfinance interest rates so high?

May 28, 2010

Americans often suffer sticker shock when they hear about interest rates charged in international microfinance. At annualized rates above 20 percent, most Americans start getting uncomfortable, and when they hear that in some places annual rates rise as high as 100 percent or even more, their moral outrage beepers start to malfunction. This is unfortunate, because when we are in a state of high outrage, it’s hard to listen. When asking “how much is too much?” it is important to reserve judgment long enough to examine the conditions that determine international microfinance interest rates. Here are three factors that international microfinance providers have to consider as they face the hard task of determining what constitutes responsible pricing. The arithmetic of tiny loans. Interest rates face an uncompromising arithmetic of three main cost elements, all context-specific. How big are the loans? What is the maximum loan officer caseload? How much are loan officers paid? A lender making $1,000 loans in a dense city market with a labor market that allows modest loan officer salaries can charge a much lower interest rate (think Bolivia, with rates in the 20s) than a lender making $100 loans in the rural parts of a middle income country where loan officers earn a lot (think Mexico with rates in the 60s). The need for sustainability to ensure coverage and permanence. Should prices support lender sustainability? Microfinance grew to reach 150 million clients worldwide by pursuing financial sustainability – and profitability — as the ticket to reaching more people permanently without heavy donor dependence. Most of today’s international microfinance providers believe the poor should be treated as clients, not recipients of charity. This point does involve moral judgment. Is it more moral to help (a few of) the poor through subsidies or to provide (many of) them with services on a business basis? Answers may differ in different places. The wealthier United States may be able to afford to subsidize the less fortunate, while in the resource-strapped developing world, subsidies are a luxury not available to the masses of the excluded. The needs and the existing options of the poor. Many people are surprised to learn that the poor in the developing world lead complex financial lives as they struggle to make their small, often intermittent incomes cover basic needs as well as unusual expenses and opportunities. Poor families are often both savers and borrowers, setting aside money in informal savings clubs, and borrowing from relatives, employers, and local grandees as well as professional moneylenders. While not all moneylenders by any means are the evil loan sharks of legend, they do generally charge rates far in excess of those charged by microlenders. Still, it’s fair to ask: can a microloan that tops out at a compound annual rate of say 80 percent inclusive of fees and taxes be a boon to poor borrowers? Client returns to investment are not well documented, but we do know that for short term loans, especially for the kinds of retail and restaurant businesses found in urban microfinance markets, opportunities to leverage an immediate lump sum of cash are often available. At an 80 percent APR, a microfinance client borrowing $500 for three months will pay back $600 – which many clients find to be an acceptable opportunity cost for equipment or stock that will boost a microenterprise’s earning ability or for consumption needs such as school fees or home improvements. That said, as interest rates come down and loan terms lengthen, microfinance loans become economically attractive to a wider range of businesses, and support longer term investments. In countries such as Mexico where rates are high, market entrants and regulators need to do everything they can to bring rates down. Ultimately, the best means of doing so is to promote competition, which spurs the innovation that brings better products at lower prices. The microfinance market in Bolivia provides a good example. In 1992 BancoSol, one of a few small microfinance loan providers at the time, charged an annual rate of 65 percent. Today, in a much more competitive environment, BancoSol and its direct competitors charge much lower rates, in the range of 18 to 22 percent. Worldwide, as microfinance has grown and many more providers have entered the market, a CGAP study found that average interest rates dropped by 2.3 percent per year from 2003 to 2006, with a median rate for profitable MFIs of about 26 percent. Ultimately, responsible pricing makes good business sense. With the relatively high cost of acquiring new clients in microfinance, financial service providers survive based on long term customer relationships. Setting a price that allows the client’s business to thrive helps to generate more future business for the financial institution.

Read the full article →

AIG Executives Won’t Face Criminal Charges, Lawyers Say

May 22, 2010

The Justice Department has decided not to file criminal charges against the former head of a division at American International Group Inc. whose dealings in mortgage-related securities nearly bankrupted the company and led to a controversial government bailout, according to lawyers involved in the cases. The decision appears to bring an end to the criminal investigation of AIG, but a Securities and Exchange Commission probe into AIG and the dealings of its London-based Financial Products subsidiary is continuing and could lead to a civil securities fraud case. Lawyers representing Joseph Cassano, who formerly ran AIG’s Financial Products unit, and Andrew Forster, who worked for Cassano, said they were told by federal prosecutors late Friday that no criminal charges would be filed. A person familiar with the government’s criminal investigation of AIG confirmed that charges wouldn’t be brought. The person was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Justice Department declined comment Saturday. SEC investigators have been involved in the case from the start, but it is unclear when a decision would be made on a civil fraud case. Federal prosecutors were investigating AIG’s Financial Products unit, which dealt in financial contracts called credit default swaps that helped sink AIG in September 2008, leading to a taxpayer-funded bailout. The credit default swaps AIG sold were insurance-like guarantees on mortgage securities that wound up forcing AIG to pay out billions of dollars after the housing market went bust. Investigators were looking into whether Financial Products officials tried to deceive investors and AIG’s auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, by misstating the accounting value of a credit default swap portfolio. When AIG posted a loss for the fourth quarter of 2007, it pinned the blame on an $11 billion writedown related to the credit default swaps held by its Financial Products group. If AIG couldn’t make good on its promise to pay off the contracts, many of which were held by major banks, regulators feared the consequences would pose a threat to the whole U.S. financial system. That led the government to go ahead with the $180 billion bailout. Cassano’s attorneys, F. Joseph Warin and Jim Walden, said in a statement that the two-year federal investigation was intense and difficult. “The results are wholly appropriate in light of our client’s factual innocence,” said the statement, which lauded federal agents and prosecutors for following the facts to end the case. “This result was the product of two things: An innocent client and fair prosecutors and agents. The system worked,” the statement said. Forster’s attorneys, David Brodsky and Richard Owens, said in a statement that they knew it would have been easy for federal prosecutors to win a grand jury indictment, but praised them for listening to their client’s case. “We knew the prosecutors were smart, fair and open-minded and that, given a full opportunity to present all the evidence, we could convince them that our client acted at all times in good faith. In the end, the facts were stronger than the emotions surrounding AIG’s problems,” the statement said. Cassano left AIG in 2008, shortly after the $11 billion loss was reported. Forster is still employed by the company. An AIG spokesman did not return a telephone message left Saturday. The AIG bailout has drawn much public ire, largely because the company paid employees $165 million in retention bonuses after the company nearly failed and had to be bailed out by the government. Nearly two years after a meltdown in the market for subprime mortgage securities cascaded into the worst financial crisis in the U.S. since the 1930s, prosecutors have had little luck bringing criminal cases against top financial executives. Last November two executives at Bear Stearns who ran hedge funds that collapsed after betting on the subprime mortgage market were acquitted of charges that they lied to investors. ___ Associated Press Writer Pete Yost contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Former AIG Executive Cassano Said Not to Face Charges in Insurer’s Failure

May 22, 2010

By Karen Gullo May 22 (Bloomberg) — Federal prosecutors won’t bring charges against former American International Group Inc. executive Joseph Cassano related to the insurer’s collapse, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The Justice Department found after a two-year investigation that there was insufficient evidence to charge Cassano, who was the former chief executive officer of AIG’s Financial Products division, the person said. The Justice Department and civil investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission were examining comments made in 2007 by Cassano and other AIG executives. They were probing whether executives misrepresented the value of AIG’s portfolio of “super senior” credit-default swaps, which insured bond losses tied to the U.S. housing market. “Although a 2-year, intense investigation is tough for anyone, the results are wholly appropriate in light of our client’s factual innocence,” F. Joseph Warin , an attorney for Cassano, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “The large group of federal agents and prosecutors was diligent and professional throughout the investigation, and our client is grateful that they did their jobs by following the facts to the end,” Warin said. “This result was the product of two things: an innocent client and fair prosecutors and agents. The system worked.” Cassano’s Cooperation Warin said in November 2008 that Cassano was cooperating with investigators and acted lawfully. Cassano, he said, acted appropriately during the valuation of AIG’s credit-default swaps and gave “full and complete information to investors, his supervisors and auditors.” Cassano’s unit managed $2 trillion in derivative trades tied to bonds, currencies, commodities and stocks. He told investors in December 2007 that “it is very difficult to see how there can be any losses in these portfolios.” By Feb. 28, 2008, AIG posted what was then its biggest quarterly loss , writing down $11.1 billion on the swaps. AIG announced Cassano’s resignation as president and chief executive officer of AIG Financial Products a day later. Hannah August, a Justice Department spokesman, didn’t immediately return voice-mail and e-mail messages seeking comment after regular business hours yesterday. The federal government’s bailout of AIG is expected to cost the Treasury Department $45.2 billion, based on March 31 data, the department said yesterday in a statement . The New York-based insurer’s $182.3 billion rescue includes as much as $69.8 billion from Treasury, a $60 billion Federal Reserve credit line and as much as $52.5 billion to buy mortgage-linked assets owned or backed by AIG. To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Former AIG Executive Cassano Said Not to Face Charges in Insurer’s Failure

May 22, 2010

By Karen Gullo May 22 (Bloomberg) — Federal prosecutors won’t bring charges against former American International Group Inc. executive Joseph Cassano related to the insurer’s collapse, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The Justice Department found after a two-year investigation that there was insufficient evidence to charge Cassano, who was the former chief executive officer of AIG’s Financial Products division, the person said. The Justice Department and civil investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission were examining comments made in 2007 by Cassano and other AIG executives. They were probing whether executives misrepresented the value of AIG’s portfolio of “super senior” credit-default swaps, which insured bond losses tied to the U.S. housing market. “Although a 2-year, intense investigation is tough for anyone, the results are wholly appropriate in light of our client’s factual innocence,” F. Joseph Warin , an attorney for Cassano, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “The large group of federal agents and prosecutors was diligent and professional throughout the investigation, and our client is grateful that they did their jobs by following the facts to the end,” Warin said. “This result was the product of two things: an innocent client and fair prosecutors and agents. The system worked.” Cassano’s Cooperation Warin said in November 2008 that Cassano was cooperating with investigators and acted lawfully. Cassano, he said, acted appropriately during the valuation of AIG’s credit-default swaps and gave “full and complete information to investors, his supervisors and auditors.” Cassano’s unit managed $2 trillion in derivative trades tied to bonds, currencies, commodities and stocks. He told investors in December 2007 that “it is very difficult to see how there can be any losses in these portfolios.” By Feb. 28, 2008, AIG posted what was then its biggest quarterly loss , writing down $11.1 billion on the swaps. AIG announced Cassano’s resignation as president and chief executive officer of AIG Financial Products a day later. Hannah August, a Justice Department spokesman, didn’t immediately return voice-mail and e-mail messages seeking comment after regular business hours yesterday. The federal government’s bailout of AIG is expected to cost the Treasury Department $45.2 billion, based on March 31 data, the department said yesterday in a statement . The New York-based insurer’s $182.3 billion rescue includes as much as $69.8 billion from Treasury, a $60 billion Federal Reserve credit line and as much as $52.5 billion to buy mortgage-linked assets owned or backed by AIG. To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Harvard MBA Graduates Pledge to Take Ethics Oath to Stop Goldman Lapses

May 20, 2010

By Oliver Staley May 20 (Bloomberg) — When Larry Estrada graduates from Harvard Business School next week, he’ll begin work at Goldman Sachs Group Inc . He’ll do so only after taking an oath. Estrada, 30, joined about 150 fellow business school students and faculty worldwide to campaign for the acceptance of an MBA ethics pledge modeled on the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors. The aim is to get as many as 6,000 graduates at 50 MBA programs to swear they won’t put personal ambitions before the interests of their employers or society. Created last year by Harvard Business students to counter a growing public mistrust of business, the oath is being championed by Nitin Nohria , the newly appointed dean of the school. After the global financial crisis, Bernard Madoff ’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme and scandals at Goldman Sachs, there has never been a better time for managers to rethink their role in society, said Rich Leimsider, director of the Aspen Institute’s Center for Business Education , in New York, which is helping to coordinate the movement. “One of the things we’re hoping to do is force hundreds of thousands of people in business to talk about and think about their responsibilities,” Leimsider said. “Nitin has given Harvard a huge head start in that direction.” 484 MBAs Last year, 484 new MBAs at Harvard Business School, in Boston, took the pledge, inspired partly by an article by Nohria and Harvard professor Rakesh Khurana , in the October 2008 issue of the Harvard Business Review, calling for a code of ethics for managers. About another 1,500 took it at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, and the Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois, and at other U.S. management schools, Leimsider said. “For me, it was a stake in the ground, to say here are my values, here’s what I believe in,” said Estrada, who plans to work as an investment manager for Goldman Sachs in Seattle. “When I have a tough decision, I want to be in a position where I have my own personal oath.” Not all Harvard Business students support the oath. About 45 percent of the graduating class of 886 last year didn’t take it, and a similar share won’t this year, either, Estrada said. The oath is “the knee-jerk reaction by business apologists to the current financial crisis,” Justin McLeod, 26, a Harvard Business student, wrote in the Harbus, a school publication. ‘Cosmetic’ Change The problem with the oath “is that it is essentially cosmetic,” Krishna Mahesh, a 2005 Harvard Business School graduate, wrote in a February e-mail. “The danger of cosmetic change is that it masks the need for real, structural change. And making that structural change is what businesses (and regulators) should be concentrating on.” The pledge is “well meaning but in the end, very mushy and not well thought out,” said Steven Kaplan , a professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. All business schools teach students to be ethical, Kaplan said. The pledge ignores the nuances of management, where leaders have to weigh competing interests against each other, he said. If Goldman Sachs’s leadership had followed the oath’s tenets, the company may not have entered into agreements to sell mortgage-backed securities that another client, New York investment company Paulson & Co., was betting against, said Khurana, the Harvard professor who worked with students in drafting the oath. Mitigating Crime “If you have a law against murders, would all murders stop? No,” Khurana said. “But I think the risk of it would be mitigated and there would be more checks at a variety of points.” The current version of the oath, which has evolved during the last year, consists of seven principles that require its takers to obey the letter and spirit of the law, refrain from corruption, oppose discrimination and exploitation, and protect the right of future generations to enjoy a healthy planet. “I recognize that my behavior must set an example of integrity, eliciting trust and esteem from those I serve,” the oath states. “I will remain accountable to my peers and to society for my actions and for upholding these standards.” At the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin, 152 of 200 graduates at a banquet May 11 signed the oath, said Hanna Patterson, a first-year student who helped coordinate the effort at Texas. The oath coincides with a new curriculum and an emphasis on personal responsibility at the institution, she said. Starting Dialogue “We’re hoping this starts a dialogue and gets people to consider, when they start their careers, what impact they can have,” Patterson, 26, said. Harvard MBAs first took the oath last year after graduating students wanted to make a statement about their principles. They approached professors Nohria and Khurana for guidance. Nohria, who has spent more than a decade advocating for professional standards in business that mirror those in law and medicine, donated $5,000 to a nonprofit organization Max Anderson and Peter Escher helped establish to spread the oath to other campuses. With Nohria as dean, Harvard may integrate the principles behind the oath into its curriculum and serve as a model for other institutions, said Escher, 30, now an investment analyst at Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. in Boston. “For better or worse, we’re a thought leader and we’ve benefited from that platform for the oath,” said Escher, who co-wrote “The MBA Oath: Setting a Higher Standard for Business Leaders” (Portfolio, 2010) with Anderson. “I do think you’ll see other schools following Harvard’s example.” Other Oaths Other business schools have oaths or pledges as part of their graduation rituals. At the Rotterdam School of Management , part of Erasmus University in the Netherlands, students take a pledge promising to “act honourably, ethically and with integrity in respect to the values and interests of all stakeholders.” Graduates of the Thunderbird School of Global Management have taken an “Oath of Honor” upon graduation since 2006. Thunderbird, a 64-year-old independent business school in Glendale, Arizona, is ranked No. 1 by U.S. News & World Report for international business programs. Harvard is fifth. “The time is right” to reposition Harvard and other business schools to have a broader outlook, Khurana said. No Harvard? “If tomorrow the Harvard Business School disappeared, what would the reaction in society be?” Khurana, 42, said. “Would it be people saying, this is the worst thing that could have happened, where are we going to find our great business leaders, or would they cheer? Unless we can answer the question that this is seen as a socially legitimate, socially positive institution, than that is our project.” The oath, and the outlook it represents, can help counter the trend in business to focus solely on profits and shareholder value, Khurana said. “When I talk to my class and use words like ‘fairness’ and ‘is this right?’ and ‘does this help the common good?’ people are at a complete loss, Khurana said. ‘‘Part of the goal of the oath is to reintroduce a language that was at the heart of American experiment, the notion of community and the common good.’’ Goldman Sachs Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein didn’t speak about the consequences of his company’s actions on society when he appeared before the U.S. Congress April 27, Khurana said. Narrow Vision ‘‘His field of vision was so narrow that every time we talked about sophisticated investors on the other side, he didn’t realize a lot of those sophisticated investors were proxies for widows and orphans,” Khurana said. A Goldman Sachs spokeswoman, Gia Morón, didn’t respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Nohria began thinking about an oath for business students in 1996, inspired partly by the example of his sister, a physician who took the Hippocratic Oath, named after Hippocrates, an ancient Greek considered the father of western medicine, he said. “All my life I’ve believed that the work I do is no less responsible to society than the work that she does, and the contribution I make is no less than the contribution she makes,” Nohria said in an interview May 3. “When business leaders came under attack, one of the things I wondered was, how can we remind business leaders of the responsibility they have to society? How can we remind them that if they conduct themselves with honor and hold themselves to a high standard there’s no reason for them not to enjoy the respect that other professions do?” Enhanced Efforts Nohria didn’t respond to an e-mail asking if he intends to make the MBA Oath mandatory when he becomes dean. He takes office on July 1. Nohria and Khurana serve on the board of the Oath Project, which works with the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders , based in Geneva; the United Nations Global Compact, a New York-based organization for businesses; and the Aspen Institute to spread the idea of the oath beyond U.S. business schools. Those efforts will be enhanced once Nohria is dean of Harvard Business School, Leimsider of the Aspen Institute said. Business people will benefit personally from taking the oath for the same reasons doctors and lawyers adhere to a code: because those professionals don’t want to be seen as “snake-oil salesmen and ambulance chasers,” Khurana said. “There’s enlightened self-interest that doing good will simultaneously be a benefit to society but also raise the respect and legitimacy of the institution,” Khurana said. To contact the reporter on this story: Oliver Staley in New York at ostaley@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Apple’s Jobs Asked Gizmodo to Return `Stolen’ IPhone, Court Documents Show

May 15, 2010

By Connie Guglielmo and Joel Rosenblatt May 15 (Bloomberg) — Steve Jobs asked technology blog Gizmodo.com to return a secret iPhone prototype that Apple Inc. says was stolen after a company engineer lost it in a bar, according to court documents released yesterday. The lost iPhone is being investigated as a possible trade- secret theft, according to California state court documents made public after media organizations including Bloomberg News asked that they be unsealed. Apple reported the phone stolen in April. The legal wrangling is over a product that, at $13 billion, accounted for more than 30 percent of 2009 sales for Apple, which closely guards details about unreleased products. An Apple lawyer said publicity about the “invaluable” prototype was “immensely damaging to Apple” because it would hinder iPhone sales, according to an April 23 affidavit by Detective Matthew Broad of the San Mateo County Sherriff’s Office. “I want to get this phone back to you ASAP and I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love,” Gizmodo editor Brian Lam said in an e-mail to Jobs, Apple’s chief executive officer. “But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out and how it was returned to Apple with some acknowledgment it is Apple’s.” Lam sent the e-mail after Jobs contacted Gizmodo on about April 19 seeking return of the prototype after the blog dissected it and posted pictures and video detailing its features. Lam said he would return the phone only if Apple provided him with confirmation that it belonged to the company, according to Broad’s affidavit. “Gimzodo lives and dies like many small companies do,” Lam said in his April 19 e-mail. “When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it or we perish.” Sales ‘Hurt’ “By publishing details about the phone and its features, sales of current Apple products are hurt,” Broad said, recounting a conversation with Apple lawyer George Riley of O’Melveny & Myers LLP. “Riley could not provide an estimated loss, but he believed it was huge. I asked Riley what the value of the missing iPhone was. He stated that it was invaluable.” Gizmodo posted a copy of a letter from Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell , dated April 19, asking for return of “a device that belongs to Apple.” Gizmodo said it gave back the prototype to Cupertino, California-based Apple that day. Sewell picked up the prototype at the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen , according to Broad. Gizmodo, which is owned by Gawker Media, said it purchased the phone for $5,000 after it was found at Gourmet Haus Stadt, a German beer hall in the San Francisco suburb of Redwood City. The phone was lost on March 25 by Apple engineer Gray Powell, according to the affidavit. Revealed by Roommate Apple and law enforcement learned the identity of the man who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo, 21-year-old college student Brian Hogan, after his roommate contacted Apple, concerned that she might be implicated in the theft because Hogan had hooked up the prototype to her computer and it might be traced to her, Broad said in his affidavit. The roommate, Katherine Martinson, said Hogan reached out to several publications and websites “in an attempt to start bidding for the iPhone prototype,” according to Broad. “Martinson said Hogan understood that he possessed a valuable piece of technology and that people would be interested in buying it.” Martinson said she and other friends tried to talk Hogan out of selling the prototype, arguing it would ruin the career of the Apple engineer who lost it, Broad said in the affidavit. “Hogan’s response to her was that it ‘Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.’” Gizmodo Bonus Hogan was to receive a cash bonus from Gizmodo in July if and when Apple makes an official product announcement about the new iPhone, Martinson said, according to Broad’s affidavit. Hogan’s lawyer, Jeffrey Bornstein , said his client continues to cooperate with authorities and has provided evidence to help them. In a phone interview yesterday, Bornstein repeated an earlier statement that while Hogan regrets he didn’t do more to return the phone to its owner, he believed that Gizmodo was compensating him so the blog could review the phone and that there was nothing wrong with sharing the phone with the press. Apple has released a new iPhone every summer since its debut in June 2007. Charlie Wolf , an analyst at Needham & Co., expects Jobs to unveil a new model at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference on June 7 and to put it on sale starting in July. New IPhones Based on Apple’s claim that the iPhone prototype was stolen, the county’s computer crimes task force, the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, last month broke down the front door of Chen’s home and seized computers and other electronics, court filings show. Gawker Media is challenging the taking of Chen’s equipment, citing laws that protect online journalists from having newsroom equipment seized. “The goal of the investigation is to find out every single person who came in contact with that phone from the moment it left the restaurant and ended up back in the hands of Apple, and to find out every person who handled it, what they knew and in the course of that if there was any crime committed,” Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said in a May 13 phone interview. Broad said in his affidavit seeking a judge’s permission to search Chen’s home that there was reason to believe a crime was committed. ‘Evidence of the Theft’ “I believe that evidence of the theft of the iPhone prototype, the vandalism of the iPhone prototype and the sale of its associated trade secrets will be found in” Chen’s home, Broad wrote in the document. Chen’s lawyer, Thomas Nolan , didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment. The search warrant affidavit indicates that the iPhone 4G prototype was disguised to look like an iPhone 3GS, the latest- generation model available in retail stores. Apple fell $4.54 to $253.82 yesterday in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares have more than doubled in the past year. According to Broad’s statement, Hogan, with the help of another roommate, packed up his computer and other equipment and moved it out of his home before law enforcement officials arrived. Hogan and some of the equipment were discovered at his father’s home in Redwood City, according to Broad’s affidavit. A Hewlett-Packard Co. desktop computer belonging to Hogan was found at a nearby church, while two portable storage devices were located “in a bush” in Redwood City, according to a search warrant made public yesterday. Judge’s Ruling Judge Clifford V. Cretan in Redwood City ruled yesterday against the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office, which argued that unsealing the documents will reveal identities of potential witnesses and compromise the investigation. Media organizations argued they should have access to the documents based on constitutionally protected free-speech rights. “It’s a great victory for the people’s right to know about the evidence and information that was available to law enforcement and the court when a search warrant was issued to search the house and seize the computer of a journalist,” Roger Myers, a lawyer for the media organizations, said in an interview after yesterday’s court hearing. Media organizations sought to have the documents unsealed to determine whether the county had a legal basis for the warrant used to break into Chen’s home. “Otherwise, there is no way for the public to serve as a check on the conduct of law enforcement officers, the prosecutors and the courts in this case,” the organizations argued in court filings. No Special Influence Chris Feasal, a San Mateo County deputy district attorney, said he’s disappointed with the ruling though he respects the judge’s decision. He declined to discuss the contents of the warrant documents or any names contained in them. Apple had no special influence in the investigation or getting it started, he said. “We are investigating it just as we are any other criminal investigation,” he said. “We are looking for evidence of criminal behavior.” Feasal said he’s not sure whether release of the warrant documents will impede the investigation. “We are just going to have to wait and see,” he said. Myers represents the First Amendment Coalition , a San Rafael, California-based group, and six media organizations, including Bloomberg News, CBS Corp.’s CNet News and the Los Angeles Times. Apple declined to comment, spokeswoman Amy Bessette said. The case is In Re Sealed Search Warrant Records, 2010-0034, San Mateo County Superior Court (Redwood City, California). To contact the reporters on this story: Connie Guglielmo in San Francisco at cguglielmo1@bloomberg.net ; Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

K Street Research: ‘Non-Lobbying Entity’ Expands, Plots K Street Takeover

May 12, 2010

Since Brien Bonneville and Larry Mitchell founded the very first “non-lobbying entity” at the beginning of the year, they’ve found plenty of demand for their “non-lobbying” services. Their firm, which they call K Street Research, has attracted several new clients for a total of nine. To meet the additional demand they’ve hired an additional staffer, Tim Farnsworth, as director of research and communications. “It’s been exciting,” said Mitchell. “We’ve had a lot of compliments, we’ve picked up quite a few clients… Right now we don’t really have any competition.” Who are those clients, and what do they pay? That’s for KSR to know and nobody to find out. KSR markets itself firm that does everything a lobbyshop does but without making “lobbying contacts,” so clients can keep their names out of the Lobbying Disclosure Act database and avoid the “Scarlet L”. KSR’s clients, its founders say, include law firms and small lobbyshops — they decline to be more specific. Bonneville and Mitchell say they draw inspiration for their innovative business model from Robert Kaiser’s “So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government,” a book about pioneering superlobbyist Gerald Cassidy, who made his name winning earmarks for high-paying clients. “It’s kind of a cult classic around here,” said Mitchell of the book. “It’s kind of odd — a book about lobbying gave us the idea on how to do a firm that doesn’t lobby.” Is it also odd, or maybe just ironic, that a book implicating K Street innovation in the corrosion of American government is the inspiration for K Street innovation? “You really have to be innovative in Washington to make a name for yourself,” said Bonneville. Mitchell pointed out that Cassidy’s “industrialization” of earmark process may be troubling, but he didn’t invent the earmark. “Earmarks have existed for a long time.” Bonneville told HuffPost in January that another source of inspiration is President Obama’s anti-lobbyist campaign talk. “The new rhetoric [against K Street] has caused us to rethink where we want to be in our careers… We’re embracing the need for change,” said Bonneville, who is 24. “We’re not lobbying. We’re doing policy research.” They’re not the only ones who’d rather not wear the Scarlet L. Even though 2009 was a record year for lobbying revenue, Bonneville and Mitchell are among hundreds of lobbyists who deregistered over the course of the year. Some good-government folks suspect there are no fewer lobbyists, just fewer lobbyists abiding the rules. KSR itself has not escaped that that suspicion. “KSR is very likely crossing the line into reportable lobbying activity in its effort to make lobbying more opaque for corporations and other special interests,” wrote Public Citizen’s Craig Holman in an email to HuffPost. “Though KSR correctly observes that many lobbying organizations unnecessarily report non-lobbying activity — such as pure research — on their LDA disclosures, the services that KSR offers to its clients to help reduce reportable lobbying activity is, in many instances, reportable lobbying activity itself.” Holman looked over the promotional language on KSR’s site and tried to square it with the strictures of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which includes “preparation and planning activities” in support of lobbying contacts in the definition of “lobbying activity.” “Any research or activity performed by KSR that is intended to facilitate lobbying contacts by their clients is reportable lobbying activity,” Holman wrote. “The only work done by KSR on behalf of their clients that would not be reportable is simple administrative tasks, like that done by a temp agency, and pure academic research that is not intended to facilitate the client’s lobbying work.” KSR is not worried at all that anything it does will violate the letter of the law. “We’re very conscious we’re just not going to cross that line,” said Mitchell.

Read the full article →

UBS Schools Private-Banking Rookies in Asia as Search for Talent Heats Up

May 7, 2010

By Joyce Koh May 7 (Bloomberg) — UBS AG , Switzerland’s biggest bank, is reviving an effort to recruit people without industry experience for its Asian private banking unit after a one-year hiatus, as competition for wealth managers heats up in the region. The Zurich-based bank is taking out ads in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan newspapers tomorrow to invite applications for the UBS Wealth Management Associate Program, said Curdin Duschletta, head of UBS Business University for Asia-Pacific. Admissions will be similar to previous years, when the course took in 25 to 50 people, he said. “If we in the industry only go for the experienced ones, it wouldn’t work out,” Duschletta said in an interview. “We would just see people moving around; there would still be less advisers than there is wealth out there to be taken care of. If we don’t offer people the opportunity to enter the industry, we would bleed out.” UBS, the biggest wealth manager in Asia with about 163 billion Swiss francs ($146.5 billion) of assets as of Dec. 31, is reaching outside the industry to aid a plan to expand its workforce of 1,000 private bankers in the region by about 40 percent. The approach contrasts with that of rivals like Citigroup Inc. , who have said they want experienced bankers. “The breadth and sophistication of our full private banking service, as well as the client type we serve, require bankers who have had in excess of 10 years of finance industry experience, preferably across a variety of disciplines,” said Mark Morgan, global head of human resources at Citi Private Bank. Bankers Needed Citigroup’s private bank serves clients with at least $10 million of net assets. UBS typically requires 1 million francs, or $900,000, to open a private-banking account. The bank, together with rivals including Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group AG and Julius Baer Group Ltd., faces a tightening labor market as they vie for an estimated $7.4 trillion of private riches in Asia. The industry may need 900 additional wealth managers in the next five years to cope with growth, according to a September research note from UBS. UBS started the Wealth Management Associate Program in 2006 and suspended it last year. The course is “part of our effort to continue to develop talent, particularly in Asia-Pacific where the industry is growing rapidly,” said Kathryn Shih , the bank’s head of wealth management in the region. Applicants for the UBS course should have about five years of work experience, preferably in finance or banking, according to a copy of the ad that was obtained by Bloomberg News. Surpassing U.S. Since the course started in 2006, UBS has gotten “thousands” of applications each year, according to Duschletta. About 120 people have graduated from the program since its inception, and most are now junior private bankers at UBS. Although most applicants tend to be from the banking industry, UBS has trained a handful of private bankers who previously worked in industries ranging from music to real estate and media, Duschletta said. Asia-Pacific is forecast to surpass North America by 2013 as the world’s largest private banking market, according to a Capgemini SA and Merrill Lynch report. Wealthy people in the region will outnumber those in the U.S. and Europe by the end of next year, consulting firm Booz & Co. estimates. “We see a pick-up in the markets,” said Duschletta. “We see a pick-up in our business development. We have the capacity to train and invest in these people, and we also need them to help us generate the business growth.” Crisis Lessons UBS said last month its wealth management units had net new money inflows in the Asia-Pacific region even as rich clients withdrew about 15 billion francs worldwide in the first quarter. Citigroup plans to hire 40 private bankers and specialists across Asia-Pacific in coming months. Standard Chartered Plc will add 100 relationship managers over the next 12 months, with many in Asia. RBS Coutts Bank Ltd., which lost more than a third of its Singapore staff to rival BSI Bank, aims to hire about 200 people in Asia over the next five years. Bank of Singapore, the private banking arm of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. , is taking on 30 more employees. The global financial crisis, during which wealthy people sued their private banks in Singapore and Hong Kong over financial losses, convinced some executives of the need to only employ industry veterans. Clariden Leu, the private bank owned by Credit Suisse, said in October it plans to only hire people with at least 15 years of experience in Asia. The lesson wasn’t lost on UBS, Duschletta said. “We have gone through quite tough times,” he said. “Now when you talk to someone, you think about how the person would behave in a crisis. You wouldn’t have thought about this three years ago.” To contact the reporter on this story: Joyce Koh in Singapore at jkoh38@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Howard Steven Friedman: Disruptively Good and the Need for Profits

May 2, 2010

I recently read an interesting article by Umair Haque called The Case for Being Disruptively Good . He’s a leading blogger about competition and global business for the Harvard Business Review. The author argues that in a highly connected world companies will experience the amplification of any good or evil that they do so that businesses that do more “good” will excel and those that do “bad” will fall. This is an interesting premise. After all, we know that companies that survive and thrive are those that continue to generate profits. This requires them to provide goods or services that customers are willing to pay a premium to purchase. Companies values can lead, lag or reflect the values of society. As America developed, the society forced the elimination of the evils of slavery, reduced child labor, created safer working conditions, reduced corporate pollution. Companies that refused to move with the changing moral demands of society lost out but companies were often laggards not leaders in driving the changes. Companies sometimes settle into a mode of profitability where they generate minimal good for their client but rather succeed through industry collusion, leveraging dominant industry positions and quashing competition. These companies usually eventually lose their dominant positions not because they are doing evil, but more simply because they are failing to provide value to their customers. I recall during my time the corporate world a primary focus on short term profitability and a general look towards longer term profitability. We tried developing financial products that would be profitable and have some appeal to the customer but I don’t recall challenging ourselves as to whether our products were “good” or “evil” though the cost of capital certainly seemed less than altruistic as the most profitable customers were those that teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. Let’s starting with a fun example of doing good, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. They are well known for being an early mover in the world of corporate responsibility. Their company has a three-part mission, one dedicated to social responsibility, one dedicated to product quality and one dedicated to profitability. Why all three? If the company puts out mediocre ice cream then they will soon become unprofitable and eventually struggle to continue functioning. Social responsibility is a worthy goal but the company exists to generate profits first and foremost, without the profits the company and its social vision will disappear. The customer enjoys the “good” from the product while the company is able to provide social value. Moving on to one that is near and dear to anyone with a PC’s heart, Microsoft. Microsoft certainly has been accused of doing plenty of “evil” in the past, most notably in their browser war with Netscape. While they certainly pushed the bounds of ethics and the law in bundling their products, Microsoft eventually developed their browser to the point where it was a superior product. When Microsoft released Vista, a relatively unpopular product, and announced the impending retirement of XP, customers were displeased. Microsoft released Windows 7, a much more popular operating system in late 2009. A typical Microsoft customer cares little of the corporate good or evil Microsoft does, but rather cares about the product they provide and how they feel about the products/services. If Microsoft continues to try forcing unpopular products, the users will look to its competitors thus damaging Microsoft’s profitability. Lastly, let’s look at Walmart. Mr. Haque argues that they are at the top of the rung, “rule making” due to its Sustainability Index being pushed on its suppliers. Walmart is the certainly the 800 pound gorilla, crushing competition while creating millions of jobs and enabling millions to purchase inexpensive products, whether they need them or not. Along the way it has definitely created its detractors due to its weak health care package, antiunion policies, supplier manipulation and other issues. The good Walmart has created in the past has been focused on low prices to its customers but Mr. Haque is correct that Walmart is better positioned than most countries to impact the environment in a positive way, creating good for the world. Let’s hope he is right because if the world waits for Nopenhagen agreements to make a difference we’ll be enjoying oceanfront property in Arizona.

Read the full article →

Francine McKenna: Key Indicator for Repurchase Risk Losses? Audited By KPMG

April 30, 2010

“It’s Like Déjà Vu All Over Again!” January 30, 2010, Wall Street Journal : Fannie, Freddie Chase Bad Mortgages Lenders Like BofA, J.P. Morgan Repurchase Billions in Faulty Loans; Just a Drop in the Default Pool Stuck with about $300 billion in loans to borrowers at least 90 days behind on payments, Fannie and Freddie have unleashed armies of auditors and other employees to sift through mortgage files for proof of underwriting flaws. The two mortgage-finance companies are flexing their muscles to force banks to repurchase loans found to contain improper documentation about a borrower’s income or outright lies. April 14, 2010, FT Alphaville: “…these repurchases are something to watch out for as JP Morgan reports Q1 earnings on Wednesday. The bank said in its last (2009) 10-k filing that: In 2009, the costs of repurchasing mortgage loans that had been sold to government agencies such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae increased substantially for JPM, and could continue to increase substantially further. Accordingly, Equity Research 15 repurchase and/or indemnity obligations to government-sponsored enterprises or to private third-party purchasers could materially and adversely affect its results of operations and earnings in the future. It anticipates that its 2010 revenue could be negatively affected by elevated levels of repurchases of mortgages previously sold to GSEs.” If you are a regular reader of this site, you may remember the first time I warned you about the poor disclosure practices surrounding repurchase risk. It was all the way back in March of 2007 and I was referring to the lack of disclosures surrounding New Century Financial. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday, New Century said lenders including Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had issued letters saying the company was in default. New Century also said its bankers had demanded that it accelerate its obligation to buy back outstanding mortgage loans financed under the lending arrangements. New Century said if its bankers demanded accelerated repurchase of all outstanding mortgages, it would cost the company $8.4bn, which it does not have… I looked quickly at the 2005 Annual Report for New Century to find out who their auditors are and to see how “rapid” this decline really was. Interestingly, besides noticing that KPMG now has another worry at its doorstep, I didn’t see too much in the way of discussion in the “Risks” section of the risk that is now causing this worldwide financial crisis. There are 17 pages of discussion of general and REIT specific risk associated with this company, but no mention of the specific risk of the potential for their banks to accelerate the repurchase of mortgage loans financed under their significant number of lending arrangements. Although there is a detailed discussion of these lending arrangements later in the report, it does not seem that reserves or capital/liquidity requirements were sufficient to cover the possibility that one of or more lenders could for some reason decide to call the loans…Didn’t someone think that this would be a very big number (US 8.4 billion) if that happened? New Century failed. There was a very detailed, well-done bankruptcy examiner’s report on that one, too. Mr. Missal pointed the finger at KPMG for not heeding the advice of their own experts, a la Andersen/Enron. Instead of the KPMG partner telling the client that their models for estimating potential losses were flawed, the partner told the staff to shut up and move on. KPMG is now being sued for $1 billion for its sins at New Century. Donna Kardos in the WSJ: The lawsuits filed Wednesday said that specialists at KPMG tried to point out errors in New Century’s financial statements but were silenced by the KPMG partner in charge of the audits “to protect KPMG’s business relationship with, and fees from, New Century.” The claims are among the first to attempt to blame auditors for the subprime-mortgage crisis, which spread beyond lenders such as New Century and engulfed the global financial system. If the New Century trustee is successful, “it may embolden others to look more closely at the possibility of bringing [accounting] firms to some level of culpability for the things that happened,” that led to the credit crisis, Francine McKenna, president of McKenna Partners LLC, a corporate-governance consultancy, said in an interview. I warned you again seven months ago that another KPMG client, Wachovia/Wells Fargo, has the same poor disclosure of repurchase risk. Did Wells Fargo’s Auditors Miss Repurchase Risk? How does the New Century situation and KPMG’s role in it remind me of Wells Fargo now? Well, in both cases, there’s no disclosure of the quantity and quality of the repurchase risk to the organization…The lack of disclosure of this issue here mirrors the lack of disclosure in New Century and perhaps in other KPMG clients such at Citigroup, Countrywide (now inside Bank of America) and others. How do I know there could be a pattern? Because the inspections of KPMG by the PCAOB , their regulator, tell us they have been cited for auditing deficiencies just like this. Do we have to wait for another post-failure lawsuit to bring some sense, and some sunshine, to the system? The latest announcements of potentially material losses due to forced repurchases of mortgages from Fannie Mae (Deloitte) and Freddie Mac (PwC) were made JP Morgan and Bank of America – both audited by PwC. The biggest losers are likely to be Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other mortgage lenders when the housing bubble burst… Bank of America repurchased nearly $4.5 billion of loans during the first nine months of 2009, according to data compiled by Barclays. That was triple the $1.5 billion repurchased in all of 2008. Some of the bad mortgages were made by Countrywide Financial Corp., which was acquired by the Charlotte, N.C., bank in 2008. A bank spokeswoman declined to comment. At J.P. Morgan, total buyback demands surged to $5.3 billion in 2009 from $4 billion in 2008, according to Barclays. The New York company, which bought the failed banking operations of Washington Mutual Inc.(Deloitte) in 2008, reported higher reserves for loan repurchases in the fourth quarter… J.P. Morgan and Bank of America don’t disclose how many loans they repurchased from Fannie and Freddie. Countrywide , now owned by Bank of America, was a KPMG client. Maybe y’all should kick the tires a little more on Citibank’s big comeback . Citi is the only big money center bank left that is audited by KPMG. Recent testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission says their underwriting standards fell apart between 2005-2007.

Read the full article →

Charles Gasparino: The Rest of Wall Street Is Beginning to Fear the Goldman Spillover

April 28, 2010

For the past two years, most of the big Wall Street firms have been joyfully watching Goldman Sachs take most of the hits for their collective sins: Their three-decade risk-taking binge culminating in a massive taxpayer bailout, and then less than a year later, handing out billions upon billions in bonuses to their bailed out bankers. Amid this bizarre (and sadly true) scenario, Goldman Sachs — the most successful of the big banks — became a disgusted public’s Wall Street whipping boy; something that its CEO Lloyd Blankfein even acknowledged yesterday to Peter Barnes of the Fox Business Network after being grilled for a couple of hours by a Senate subcommittee investigating Goldman’s business practices during the financial crisis. Goldman, in case you haven’t heard, is at the center of Wall Street PR nightmare; just a year after the 2008 financial collapse and subsequent bailouts, it used low interest rates supplied by the Fed and guarantees supplied by the federal government to crank out around $12 billion in profits and a whopping $20 billion in bonuses for its executives. In addition to the public outrage over its profits and bonuses, Goldman is also the focus of a civil fraud case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that the firm and a young trader failed to disclose key information on some bonds it sold to clients in 2007. Amid all of this, Goldman’s competitors at JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Citigroup, have been silently cheering. They hate Goldman nearly as much as Rolling Stone magazine, which has lampooned the firm as the center of all evil on Wall Street. That is until Tuesday, when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation got into Goldman-basing mode as well with hearings focusing on firm’s business practices, namely how it elevated the practice of screwing its clients to an art form in the years leading up to the 2008 banking collapse. During the hearings, a half dozen Goldman executives including the firm’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein were lawyered-up enough to successfully obfuscate through much of the questioning, though by the end of the 10-hour ordeal, they had to acknowledge something that will likely cause Goldman and the rest of Wall Street a lot of trouble: That in making so much money, before the financial collapse and now in its aftermath, the firm really doesn’t care about its clients. It really doesn’t think twice about selling customers investments that are “shitty” (a word subcommittee chairman Carl Levin repeatedly used after he found it referenced in several Goldman emails) and that as a firm, Goldman has no problem whatsoever hiding from its clients key details of these shitty investments, namely that it knew those investments were shitty when it was selling them. That point was made perfectly clear by one of the “stars” of yesterday’s proceedings, the now famous trader named Fabrice Tourre, who is at the center of the recent SEC case against the firm. At issue is whether Tourre should have disclosed the involvement of a short seller, John Paulson, in the creation of an investment tied to the mortgage bond market, known as a collateralized debt obligation. Paulson, of course, was betting that the bonds were going to fall in value (as the mortgages fell into default), while two other investors bet the bonds’ prices would appreciate. Paulson was right and made billions, while the investors were wrong and lost big bucks, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem, according to the SEC, is that Goldman didn’t tell investors of Paulson’s involvement in helping to craft the portfolio in question which, as it turns out, reflected mortgages that Carl Levin would describe as “shitty.” More than that, the SEC also charges that one of the investors, ACA Capital, actually believed Paulson was “long” on the portfolio of shitty bonds, thus betting that their prices would rise. Tourre, in his wonderful French accent, both denied the SEC charges and then did something that I believe is very important: He gave the subcommittee and the rest of the investing public an education on what on Wall Street counts for full and honest disclosure. Contrary to the SEC’s complaint, Tourre said he actually alerted ACA that Paulson was going short. How did he do that? By telling ACA that Paulson was “buying protection” on the deal. Buying protection is Wall Street speak for going short, he assured the committee. Maybe so, but as many as five traders yesterday told me that they use the same term “buying protection” when they are going short in order to hedge or “protect” a long position. In other words, Tourre’s disclosure could have just as easily confirmed the belief of ACA, (no matter how absurd that belief might be as Goldman has argued), that Paulson was in fact long the portfolio of CDOs in question. Why didn’t Tourre use the most explicit explanation of Paulson’s position and describe it as a “short”? I don’t know, and no one on the committee asked him. But during his testimony he offered a clue. In response to a question by Senator Susan Collins, Tourre basically said that he and his colleagues have a very limited responsibility to clients in terms of disclosing information. Goldman, like the rest of the Street, is a market maker not a “financial adviser.” This distinction may sound like technical mumbo-jumbo but its very important. As a market maker, Tourre has no “fiduciary responsibility” to his clients and their interests. As a financial adviser he does. Last week when reports of Tourre’s short “disclosures” broke, several major news organizations declared the SEC case to be weak or even dead on arrival. I know lawyers or say just the opposite; that the case is a solid one, though it should be noted that among the many unanswered questions in the case is why, for instance, ACA believed Paulson was long the CDOs, as the SEC maintains. To me a bigger issue and problem for Goldman, and for that matter the rest of Wall Street, is what the hearings signaled may lie ahead in the future. Between some of the truly dopey questions asked by the committee, and the weasel-wording of the Goldman people, emerged a central truth about the Wall Street business model: It’s designed, albeit legally, to screw clients, and some in Congress are thinking about changing that business model — making Wall Street have a “fiduciary responsibility” to its clients. And that’s why top executives at JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Citigroup are starting to feel Goldman’s pain. The problem for Wall Street is pretty simple: Most of its profits come from risk-taking trading activities, not giving clients advice such as how best to float a stock deal, or whether or not the client should merge with another company. In other words, Wall Street lives off gambling, as was made perfectly clear during the hearings as the committee discussed some of the crass emails from Goldman executives describing just how the gambling takes place. But when was the last time a Las Vegas casino was bailed out by the US taxpayer? That’s why Wall Street is so concerned about the the public’s hatred of Goldman spilling over to force lawmakers to consider some drastic reforms. Keep in mind, fraud charges are easy to settle for firms that earn $12 billion in profits. What’s more potentially threatening (and costly) to Wall Street is the public’s revulsion of a business that does nothing more than sell shitty investments to investors and make tens of billions in the process. That’s when lawmakers start to take aim. Susan Collins raised the “fiduciary responsibility” issue in her questioning with Tourre, but Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware has turned it up a notch during an interview with the Fox Business Network on Wednesday afternoon. Kaufman said that after financial reform is dealt with, he and other senators will investigate whether the casino should continue to exist by designating firms as “financial advisers,” meaning not only will they have a fiduciary responsibility not to screw their clients, their responsibility will be to make sure their clients aren’t screwed. The SEC, I am told, is looking into the matter as well. Wall Street, of course, will fight anything that makes the casino less profitable as it has the Volcker Rule which prohibits certain types of trading in the current reform legislation. But what Kaufman and Collins are talking about won’t just make the casino less profitable, it will end the casino once and for all. Wall Street would have to turn back the clock to a way of doing business that centers on providing advice and counsel to it clients. Wall Street will also have to turn back the clock on its profits, and that will mean a lot less of them.

Read the full article →

Levin Grilling Blankfein Over Ethics Means Clash of Harvard Law Standouts

April 28, 2010

By James Sterngold April 28 (Bloomberg) — Lloyd C. Blankfein and Carl Levin both have degrees from Harvard Law School. Judging from their confrontation on Capitol Hill yesterday, they hardly speak the same language. Levin, chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations , pummeled Blankfein, chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , with a barrage of questions about why the Wall Street firm sold securities it was betting against. Blankfein struggled to complete sentences as he tried to describe what it means to be a market-maker. “Levin had a simple narrative to tell: Goldman bet against their clients,” said Jonathan Taplin , a professor of communication at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School in Los Angeles. “Blankfein had these long complicated explanations, but I’m not sure the average person listens or cares about that.” The clash of the two chairmen came toward the end of more than 10 hours of public hearings looking into Goldman Sachs’s role in the financial crisis. At times, it seemed like a mismatch. Levin, 75, a Michigan Democrat, frequently interrupted Blankfein, 55, who runs Wall Street’s most profitable bank. “Your people think it’s a piece of crap and go out and sell it,” said Levin, his reading glasses pushed to the tip of his nose, referring to Goldman Sachs e-mails in which traders spoke of selling securities to customers. “We’re talking about betting against the very thing that you’re selling, without disclosing that to your client.” Detroit, Brooklyn Blankfein, often squinting, talked about providing “liquidity” and using “instruments” that give customers “the risk they want.” Levin just returned to his theme. “What do you think about your own people selling securities they think are crap?” the senator asked. Both Levin, who grew up in Detroit, and Blankfein, the son of a postal worker raised in Brooklyn, went to public schools before attending elite colleges. Levin graduated from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, and Blankfein from Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Both attended Harvard Law School, Levin graduating in 1959 and Blankfein in 1978. Blankfein practiced tax law before joining the commodities firm J. Aron & Co., later acquired by Goldman Sachs. He became CEO in 2006. Last year he received a salary of $600,000 and a bonus in stock of $9 million. ‘Rorschach Test’ Levin worked as an assistant attorney general in Michigan and general counsel for the Michigan Civil Rights Commission before being elected to the Detroit City Council and then winning a seat in the Senate in 1978. He is chairman of the Armed Services Committee as well as the investigations subcommittee and has led probes into unfair credit card practices, money laundering and the collapse of Enron Corp. Last year he made $174,000. The two men have risen to the heights of professions that are held in low regard. Viewers tended to see what they wanted to in the hearing because of cynicism both about Wall Street and Washington, said Victor Hwang, managing director of T2 Venture Capital in Los Altos Hills, California. “It’s a Rorschach test for people,” Hwang said. “Was the financial crisis caused by a failure of the markets or by the failure of government? I am of the belief that the markets utterly failed and that government failed to exercise good oversight. Levin is more credible, but only because Goldman Sachs is near zero right now.” ‘Selling Junk’ Donna Grimme, president of H & N Plumbing and Heating in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, saw the confrontation another way. “I blame the politicians more than Goldman Sachs or Blankfein,” said Grimme. “Goldman and Blankfein have more credibility than a senator. The politicians want to get more involved. If the government would stay out of financial markets and let things fall where they may, we’d be better off.” Robert Collet, a real estate broker in Downey, California, said he lost an investment in a condominium that was foreclosed and that his home equity of about $180,000 had been wiped out. He said he believed many politicians were being hypocritical because they had accepted contributions from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms. Still, he said people needed to be protected against aggressive bankers. “I’ll take Levin over Blankfein any day,” said Collet. “I just feel they want it all. If they have 90 percent of something, they’re thinking about how to get the other 10 percent. We need government to protect us from that.” As Levin’s questioning of Blankfein dragged on into the evening, he lectured Blankfein about the ethics of his business. “You shouldn’t be selling junk,” Levin said. “You shouldn’t be selling crap. You shouldn’t be betting against your own customers.” To contact the reporter on this story: James Sterngold in New York at jsterngold2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Caveat Emptor Defense Mirrors UBS, Merrill Subprime Lawsuits

April 21, 2010

By William McQuillen and Patricia Hurtado April 21 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has signaled it will fight a U.S. lawsuit over subprime mortgage instruments the same way Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch unit and UBS AG have challenged similar claims — by invoking the concept of caveat emptor: Latin for buyer beware. The strategy may work. By insisting that purchasers of collateralized debt obligations knew what they were getting into, Goldman Sachs is following a well-traveled path. Both Merrill and UBS won dismissal of similar claims that they misrepresented the risks of such assets by saying the buyers were sophisticated enough to know better. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Goldman Sachs of creating and selling the CDOs without disclosing that hedge fund Paulson & Co. helped pick the underlying securities and bet against the instrument. Goldman Sachs denied any wrongdoing, saying that it provided “extensive disclosure” to customers about the risks. Goldman Sachs, whose mantra is clients’ interests always come first, has said “these are sophisticated investors who knew what they were buying,” said David Irwin , a former federal prosecutor in private practice in Towson, Maryland. The bank is arguing that the average buyer of this product isn’t some “credit union that didn’t know what it was doing,” he said. Faltering Housing Market In early 2007, as the U.S. housing market began to falter, Goldman Sachs created and sold the CDO vehicle, known as Abacus, linking it to bundles of subprime mortgages whose value would rise or fall depending on whether homeowners paid them off. Billionaire John Paulson ’s firm earned $1 billion on the CDOs and wasn’t accused of wrongdoing by the SEC. The SEC alleged in its April 16 complaint that, had Goldman Sachs customers known Paulson helped choose the securities that formed the basis of the CDO, and that Paulson was betting against them, they might not have bought any. The regulator’s case in Manhattan federal court may hinge on that issue, said lawyer Mark Zauderer of New York’s Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLC, who isn’t involved in the case. Even if a jury finds the customer would have bought the Goldman Sachs product with knowledge of Paulson’s role, the panel may still find in favor of the SEC if it decides those facts were intentionally hidden, Zauderer said. ‘Sophisticated Investors’ “Goldman certainly can and will argue that the sophisticated investors were perfectly capable of evaluating the quality of securities, regardless of what Paulson’s intentions were in betting against them,” said Zauderer, who helped defend former New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso . Grasso successfully challenged a 2004 compensation lawsuit by then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer . “Whether they did sufficient due diligence or reasonably relied upon what was presented to them” will be an issue, Zauderer said of the CDO’s buyers. Goldman Sachs lawyer Richard Klapper of New York-based Sullivan & Cromwell LLP didn’t return a call seeking comment. The professional savvy of investors who purchase such financial vehicles was cited by a New York state judge as grounds for dismissal earlier this month of fraud claims brought against two Merrill units. In that 2009 suit, Armonk, New York-based bond insurer MBIA Inc. and its LaCrosse Financial Products LLC unit claimed that Merrill had a “deliberate strategy to offload” billions of dollars of “deteriorating” subprime mortgages from July 2006 to March 2007, as homeowner defaults began to soar. Merrill rejected the allegations and denied any wrongdoing. MBIA Lawsuit New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Fried in Manhattan dismissed five of six claims brought by MBIA over protection sold against mortgage-debt defaults. Fried, who allowed a breach-of-contract claim to continue, said the credit- default swaps were the product of “intensive negotiations among the parties, whose sophistication and business acumen and experience cannot be overstated.” “MBIA and LaCrosse specifically stated that they were able to evaluate the validity of the CDOs, and were specifically warned that the transaction was appropriate only for sophisticated investors capable of analyzing the risks, including the risk related to the type of collateral involved in the transaction,” the judge wrote in his opinion. MBIA has said it will appeal. Zurich-based UBS used that argument to fight a lawsuit by Hamburg-based HSH Nordbank AG seeking to recover at least $275 million in losses on a portfolio linked to the U.S. subprime-mortgage market. Claims of Trickery HSH alleged that the Swiss bank was able to trick it into making the investment because in 2001, when they were negotiating the deal, HSH was “a regional German bank with little familiarity with international structured finance,” according to its complaint. UBS lawyer Barry Sher called that claim “the babes in the woods defense” during a May 2008 hearing in the case. HSH had done its own credit-linked note transaction a year before entering the UBS contract, Sher said. In separate rulings in 2008 and 2009, New York State Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe in Manhattan dismissed most of HSH’s claims, including fraud, while allowing others to go forward. Both sides are appealing. “HSH’s reworded claim that it was but a naïve investor in the hands of the more experienced UBS in a world of complex investment rings as unconvincing now as it was in the original complaint,” Lowe said. Risky Mortgage Bets In a third case, JPMorgan Chase & Co. ’s attempt to fend off billionaire Len Blavatnik’s suit blaming his losses on the bank’s risky mortgage bets led to a mixed court ruling. Blavatnik, founder of Access Industries Group, accused the second-largest U.S. bank of stuffing its portfolio with too much subprime-mortgage risk. In December, New York State Supreme Court Justice Melvin L. Schweitzer , also in Manhattan, threw out Blavatnik’s claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The judge refused to dismiss accusations against the New York-based bank of breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. “Plaintiff was a passive investor that looked to the expertise and advice of defendants in structuring an investment strategy,” Schweitzer wrote. “Since plaintiff properly has alleged its reliance on these misrepresentations, there is a strong presumption that its reliance was reasonable given the investment management relationship between the parties.” JPMorgan had argued Blavatnik couldn’t state a claim merely by pointing to losses. ‘Reasonable’ Adviser “Whether defendants acted with ‘negligence or willful misconduct’ cannot be assessed by asking what investment decisions a reasonable investment adviser would have made under normal market conditions,” the bank’s lawyers said in court papers. “The relevant question is what a reasonable investment adviser would have done in the face of this historic financial crisis.” Mary Sedarat , a spokeswoman for JPMorgan, declined to comment. If Goldman Sachs made a significant misrepresentation to customers looking to buy the instrument at issue in the SEC lawsuit, it can’t argue that experienced investors should have known what they were getting into, Zauderer said. Goldman Sachs said in a statement responding to the SEC lawsuit that it provided full disclosure about the offering and that its portfolio was marketed solely to sophisticated financial institutions. Failed to Mention The investment bank also argued that the SEC complaint failed to mention that it lost more than $90 million from the transaction, as compared with the $15 million in fees it got. Goldman Sachs said that IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and ACA Management LLC, two investors in the Abacus product that were identified in the SEC complaint, were aware of the risk associated with the securities and were “among the most sophisticated mortgage investors in the world.” Merrill has mounted a similar, sophisticated investor- defense to a suit brought by Netherlands-based Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA , known as Rabobank. As in the Goldman Sachs case, Utrecht-based Rabobank claimed Merrill omitted important information in advising on a CDO tied to subprime mortgages. In that case, also presided over by Judge Fried, the alleged omission was Merrill’s relationship with another client betting against the investment, which resulted in a loss of $45 million. Merrill countered in court papers that Rabobank was aware of the risks, which were disclosed in the transaction documents. The bank should have been responsible for conducting its own due diligence, and shouldn’t have relied on Merrill, the bank said in a court filing last year seeking to dismiss the case. SEC Allegations Attorneys for Rabobank have seized on the SEC’s allegations against Goldman to support their own case. In a filing in state court in Manhattan on the same day the SEC sued Goldman, the Dutch bank drew a parallel between the complaints. Rabobank urged the judge to grant it access to Merrill’s records of how the collateral manager for a synthetic CDO went about selecting investments. Rabobank said the SEC complaint justifies its lawsuit because Merrill is accused of “precisely the same type of fraudulent conduct in the structuring and marketing” of CDOs. Bill Halldin , a Merrill spokesman, rejected Rabobank’s attempt to link its complaint to the Goldman Sachs case, saying on April 16 that the matters are unrelated. Rick Werder, a New York attorney for Blavatnik with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP , said the SEC lawsuit against Goldman Sachs supports a broader government inquiry into the CDO market. “The latest allegations provide further indication that, in the area of mortgage-backed securities, some of our nation’s financial institutions consistently placed their own self- interest ahead of the interests of their customers,” he said. The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldman Sachs, 10-cv-03229, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporter on this story: William McQuillen in Washington at bmcquillen@bloomberg.net and; Patricia Hurtado in New York at pathurtado@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Homestore Ex-Chief Wolff Gets 4 1/2 Year Term for `Calculated Deception’

April 19, 2010

By Edvard Pettersson April 20 (Bloomberg) — Former Homestore Inc. Chief Executive Officer Stuart Wolff was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison after pleading guilty in January to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. U.S. District Judge Gary Feess at a hearing yesterday in Los Angeles rejected arguments by Wolff’s lawyer for a three- year term, the low end under his plea deal with prosecutors. The judge said Wolff, 46, with a doctorate in electrical engineering from Princeton University, must have known that what he did was inappropriate and morally wrong. “This was a very calculated deception of the public,” Feess said. “He knew what was going on, and he knew it was wrong when it was happening.” Wolff’s lawyer, John Gibbons, said his client knew what he did was wrong and that it was out of character. At the time of the 2001 fraud, Wolff was part of the “go-go-go” generation of young entrepreneurs swept up in the Internet bubble, the lawyer told the judge. “He wasn’t doing what a morally bereft person would have done,” Gibbons said. Wolff didn’t address the court at the hearing. In 2006, Wolff was sentenced to 15 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of directing a $67 million fraud aimed at boosting the online home-listings company’s stock price. That conviction was thrown out in 2008 when a U.S. appeals court said the trial judge, who owned shares of America Online Inc. , a business partner of Homestore, had a conflict of interest. Round-Trip Deals Prosecutors claimed Homestore, which ran an online real estate site now known as Move.com , used intermediary vendors to pay companies including AOL to buy advertising on its site. Homestore improperly recorded revenue from the so-called round- trip deals, prosecutors claimed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Wilner asked Feess to sentence Wolff to five years in prison, the longest possible term under his plea deal. Wilner said Wolff shouldn’t get additional credit for pleading guilty because he refused to come forward and answer questions for almost eight years. The case is U.S. v. Wolff, 2:05-cr-00398, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles). To contact the reporter on this story: Edvard Pettersson in Los Angeles at epettersson@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

David Paul: Goldman Sachs Fraud Case Is a Distraction From the Real Issue of Substantial Financial Reform

April 18, 2010

Goldman Sachs is robustly protesting their innocence. The SEC accusations–that Goldman is guilt of fraud and duplicity–are “completely unfounded in law and in fact.” But even if Goldman is proven right, that does not make the SEC wrong. As the old saw goes, When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. It is table pounding time. In essence, the SEC is raising the question as to whether Goldman created synthetic collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) for the purpose of allowing one group of investors to short the subprime market, while not disclosing this activity to other clients holding or purchasing those same bonds. The SEC is asking whether Goldman benefitted from both sides in a manner that violated their fiduciary obligation to their clients. And the simple answer is, of course they were. This is not a legal conclusion, but rather a systemic one. Given the size and scale of its operations, Goldman–like the rest of the financial Goliaths that have emerged from the global financial crisis–cannot help but be on both sides of almost any trade, and ultimately be in a position of advising different clients in opposite directions. But most importantly, Goldman is a trading firm, whose activities inevitably lead them to be putting their own considerable capital to bear against their client’s own interests. Trading has become the most profitable activity in banking institutions, and derivatives trading–including synthetic CDOs and credit default swaps–has magnified potential profitability by allowing firms to realize nearly unlimited leverage as they position their bets in the global markets. While in years past, Goldman had a far smaller share of the market and prospered through a client-centric culture, that was then and this is now. Today, in a world of previously unimaginable trading profits and bonus payouts, concerns for clients and firm culture have been rendered quaint. The blinding allure of trading profits has replaced raising and lending capital for the real economy as the singular focus of banking industry. This was evident last month when RBS–Royal Bank of Scotland, the largest bank in the world before the crisis that is now 84% owned by the British taxpayers–decried any limits on its trading activities. Trading profits, RBS asserted, were the key to rebuilding its balance sheet. That RBS would publicly embrace the view that it intended to trade its way to prosperity begged the question of whether there aren’t any losing sides of any of these trades. Barely a year has passed since the low moments of the financial collapse–a collapse characterized by highly leveraged bets gone wrong–and dementia has truly set in. As Congress considers major financial system reform, it is increasingly apparent that what emerges will be far from a stringent restructuring of the financial system that is warranted. Wall Street leaders have made no bones over the fact that they intend to protect their own interests in any legislation that emerges, and in particular will fight any efforts to curtail the highly profitable derivatives trading. That we have reached a table-pounding moment should have been evident to all on February 7th when, in a front page story in the New York Times , Wall Street publicly expressed its “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats, and now looked to shift their political contributions to Republicans, who eagerly sought to offer Wall Street contributors a more appreciative home for their largesse. Back in the day, political contributions in exchange for governmental action was viewed as the essence of corruption, and contributors and recipients went to great lengths to deny linkages between the money and legislative outcomes. But apparently there is no longer any shame in–or prohibition against–the buying and selling of political influence. Today, regulatory reform is being debated publicly between the two largest recipients of banker largesse: Senators Christopher Dodd and Mitch McConnell. Accordingly, instead of focusing on issues of the size and capitalization of banks, the role of deposit insurance, and limitations on derivatives that provide no social utility, debate has focused on consumer protection and the locus of dissolution authority for failed institutions. These may be important questions, but they are predicated on doing nothing to curtail the massive aggregation of financial and political power within the banking sector. Wall Street, it would appear, has spent its money well. While the debate among Wall Street and Congress continues, others suggest that the issues are not so complicated. One week after the story about Wall Street’s buyer’s remorse, a clique of octogenarians gathered around former Fed Chairman Paul Volker to support his call for more stringent restrictions on the trading activities of commercial banks. Standing with Volker were former Citigroup chairman John Reed, Bush 41 Treasury Secretary and Dillon Read Chairman Nicholas Brady, Wall Street legend and former SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson, Vanguard founder John Bogle, among others. For these men, whose days in the trading pits and positions of power were behind them, the answers were simple. As Nick Brady intoned: “If you are a commercial bank and you wish the government to guarantee your deposits and bail you out if necessary, then you can’t be involved in speculative activity.” Arguing that the lure of excessive profits and bonuses had undermined the core values of the banking system, Brady pushed back on those who argued that trading and derivatives were important to the banking system and dismissed self-serving the arguments for preserving the status quo. ” You draw a line that is too tight, that doesn’t bother me a bit.” Volker and his old friends were sending a simple message: Like it or not, we have not yet come close to a real discussion of effective, systemic financial reform. Self-interest–of bankers and politicians alike–stands firmly in the way. The SEC charges against Goldman may or may not stick, but it should be clear to all that, as Jack Bogle observed, the system has gone badly awry and needs massive reform. That Goldman Sachs has become the poster child for all that ails us is its own fault. Like its banker brethren, Goldman has used the global financial crisis to its own advantage–gathering tens of billions of public dollars as AIG was unwound and gaining access to the Fed window–and has made effective use of political money and influence to perpetuate a system that assures Wall Street freedom to pursue massive profits, while the public continues to bear the risk. Shame on Goldman Sachs if they have committed fraud. But shame on us if we do nothing to change the rules of the game.

Read the full article →

UBS Defies Politicians, Vows to Pay Market Rates to Attract, Keep Bankers

April 14, 2010

By Elena Logutenkova April 14 (Bloomberg) — UBS AG Chief Executive Officer Oswald Gruebel said he’ll pay enough to hire and retain the best bankers, defying pressure from Swiss politicians and some investors to curb bonuses after record losses. “We need specialists and executives, whose price is determined by the global market,” Gruebel said at the annual shareholders’ meeting of Switzerland’s biggest bank in Basel today. “That is a reality that we must acknowledge if we want UBS to compete globally, generate value for shareholders and remain an attractive employer.” UBS received the backing of 55 percent of shareholders today for its 2009 compensation report after speakers at the meeting criticized bonuses as unjustified. The bank paid out 2.9 billion Swiss francs ($2.8 billion) in cash bonuses, a 34 percent increase from 2008, the year it reported the biggest loss in Swiss corporate history and needed a government rescue. “The bank made billions of losses and had to be saved by the state, which asked it to be conservative with bonuses,” said Rudolf Weber, a shareholder who said he came to the meeting from a hospital bed. “Mr. Gruebel, I’m not stupid. We all in this room are not stupid to accept your comments that you must pay bonuses.” UBS advanced 36 centimes, or 2 percent, to 18.41 francs by 2:53 p.m. in Swiss trading, bringing the gain this year to 15 percent. That compares with a 5.1 percent increase in the 52- company Bloomberg Europe Banks and Financial Services Index during the period. More Outflows Seen Gruebel, 66, said he’s upbeat about the prospects for Switzerland’s biggest bank after a return to profit, even as he predicted further client withdrawals at the private bank. UBS said two days ago it had a pretax profit of at least 2.5 billion francs in the first quarter, the most since the second quarter of 2007. The bank also reported a ninth straight quarter of net client redemptions at the wealth and asset- management divisions, and Gruebel forecast more outflows “before we can turn this trend around.” Shareholders criticized a new deferred stock award, introduced by UBS for 2009, which foresees a payout in five years of between one and three shares for every unit awarded, depending on the bank’s share price. More than 900 of “the best” people received these awards, which have a current value of 269 million francs, Gruebel said. UBS’s share price would have to rise to 28 francs in five years for the employees to get two shares for each unit, and to 44 francs to get three shares, Chairman Kaspar Villiger said. Gruebel and Villiger said they didn’t receive this award. No Dividends UBS said in February that it deferred stock bonuses for senior employees whose total pay for 2009 exceeded $250,000. That reduced the total bonus pool paid out for the unprofitable year. Bonuses were down from 9.92 billion francs paid for 2007. The decline in variable compensation from 2007 is “a right step,” though not enough, said shareholder Guido Roethlisberger. “The total amount of bonuses should not be higher than the amount paid out in dividends to shareholders.” UBS has not paid any dividend for the past two years and distributed a stock dividend for 2007 instead of cash payments. Requiring a bank “to refrain from paying any bonuses at all and not permitting it to pay compensation in line with market rates means taking away its chances for recovery and survival,” Villiger told shareholders. “That is why I strongly reject the criticism of our remuneration policy.” The shareholders’ vote approving the compensation report was not binding for the Zurich-based bank. Villiger, 69, said that the board will take it into account when deciding on future compensation policies. To contact the reporters on this story: Elena Logutenkova in Zurich at elogutenkova@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Citigroup Former Head Prince, Rubin Face Grilling on Role in Record Losses

April 8, 2010

By Bradley Keoun April 8 (Bloomberg) — Charles O. “Chuck” Prince and Robert Rubin , Citigroup Inc.’s former leaders, face a grilling by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission today on why they didn’t foresee the housing collapse and its record losses. Commission Vice Chairman Bill Thomas said in an interview yesterday he wants to hear whether Prince, ousted as chief executive officer in 2007, and Rubin, who served as interim chairman, accept any responsibility for Citigroup ’s performance. The panel is holding a second day of hearings in Washington to probe the mortgage-market collapse and ensuing bank bailouts. Given the multimillion-dollar pay packages awarded to Citigroup executives, Thomas said he wants to know why they didn’t do a better job. Bankers told the panel yesterday they relied on statistical models that failed to predict the severity of the crisis. The resulting losses crippled New York-based Citigroup and triggered a $45 billion federal bailout. “I’m struck by the fact that we can hide behind the statistical models,” said commission member John Thompson , who’s chairman of Symantec Corp. “Where was the intuitive leadership judgment that said something may not be right in this market?” One executive, former trading chief Thomas Maheras , made $97 million in the three years leading up to the credit crisis, according to Thomas. Heather Murren, another commission member, called it “disingenuous” for Citigroup executives responsible for the risks to now blame failed statistical models. ‘Defective’ Loans During yesterday’s session, the panel was told Citigroup routinely bought mortgages that violated the bank’s own standards. Richard Bowen , former chief underwriter for Citigroup’s consumer-lending group, said he determined in mid- 2006 that more than 60 percent of mortgages bought from other firms and sold to investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “defective.” “I started issuing warnings in June 2006 and attempted to get management to address these critical risk issues,” said Bowen, who was chief underwriter for correspondent lending in Citigroup’s consumer-lending group. “These warnings continued through 2007 and went to all levels of the consumer-lending group.” In a November 2007 e-mail headlined, “URGENT-READ IMMEDIATELY-FINANCIAL ISSUES,” Bowen said he warned top managers including Rubin, who was the board’s executive committee chairman, of “possibly unrecognized financial losses.” Bill Comes Due “I know that this will prompt an investigation of the above circumstances which will hopefully be conducted by officers of the company outside of the consumer-lending group,” Bowen wrote in the e-mail, a copy of which he included in the prepared remarks. The missive was copied to then-Chief Financial Officer Gary Crittenden and David Bushnell , Citigroup’s chief risk officer. By that time, Citigroup already was beginning to pay for its bad mortgage investments. The New York-based lender posted a then-record $9.8 billion net loss for the fourth quarter of 2007 and was forced in 2008 to get a $45 billion federal bailout. Bowen said he didn’t copy Prince, now 60 years old, on the e-mail to Rubin because there was already speculation in the media that Prince would soon be dismissed. Citigroup announced Prince’s ouster on Nov. 4, 2007, and Rubin, now 71, took over as interim chairman. “The issues raised by Mr. Bowen were promptly and carefully reviewed when he raised them and corrective actions were taken,” said Molly Meiners , a Citigroup spokeswoman. Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department converted $25 billion of the bailout funds into a 27 percent stake in the bank, and Citigroup repaid the remaining $20 billion. Packaged Debt The commission interrogated Citigroup executives who oversaw the bank’s accumulation of collateralized debt obligations, which were created by repackaging bonds that in turn were created from home loans. The so-called super-senior holdings, the highest-rated of all CDO bonds, plunged in value as subprime-mortgage defaults surged and contributed to the bank’s record $28 billion net loss in 2008. Maheras , the former trading chief, told the panel that Citigroup began its foray into CDOs on the recommendation of outside consultants and failed to see the risks. The consultants were hired by “our senior-most management” in 2005 and conducted a “careful study,” Maheras told the panel. The consultants weren’t named. ‘Alchemy’ “Even in the summer and fall of 2007, I continued to believe, based upon what I understood from the experts in the business, that the bank’s super-senior CDO holdings were safe,” Maheras said. The securities carried triple-A ratings and were deemed “super-safe,” he said. One of the commissioners, Byron Georgiou , said during the hearing that Citigroup’s CDO business was akin to medieval “alchemy,” where mortgages made to borrowers with low credit scores were packaged into bonds with triple-A ratings. Thomas asked Maheras and the other former Citigroup executives whether they lost sleep over the bank’s losses, and whether they deserved the pay they received in the years leading up to the financial crisis. “You didn’t know what you were doing,” Thomas said. “Or, yes, you knew what you were doing, until you didn’t.” Maheras, who said he was “paid handsomely” in the years leading up to the crisis, didn’t get a bonus for 2007, when he left. Risk Management The commission, led by former California Treasurer Phil Angelides , also quizzed Bushnell and Nestor Dominguez , who co- headed the bank’s CDO business. The first to testify today was former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan , 84, who defended the central bank’s record on consumer protection in the years before the financial crisis and said regulators can reduce the chances of another meltdown by requiring banks to hold more capital. Bowen, who has 35 years of banking experience and is licensed as a certified public accountant in Texas, oversaw 220 underwriters at Citigroup and had responsibility for more than $90 billion annually of new mortgages, according to his statement. In some cases, Citigroup executives in New York overturned Bowen’s recommendations on some mortgage purchases to “approved” from “turn down,” he said. “Subprime mortgage pools, many over $300 million, were purchased even though the minimum credit-policy-required- criteria was not met,” Bowen said. “Beginning in 2006, I issued many warnings to management concerning these practices, and specifically objected to the purchase of many identified pools.” Lawyer Calls The week after Bowen sent his e-mail to Rubin, he received a “very brief” call from a lawyer in the office of Citigroup’s general counsel, he said during his live testimony today. The lawyer assured Bowen his concerns would be taken “seriously,” he said. Bowen wasn’t contacted again until January 2008, when he explained “details” to lawyers in the general counsel’s office during a series of conference calls lasting a total of five hours, he said. After that, Bowen said, he was no longer “physically” at the bank, and his employment ceased in January 2009. He said he didn’t know whether any actions had been taken as a result of the e-mail and conference calls. In a discussion with reporters during a break in the hearings, Steve Kardell, a lawyer for Bowen, declined to comment on his client’s departure from Citigroup or say whether there was any pending litigation over his employment. Bushnell, Dominguez Bushnell, who was replaced as Citigroup’s chief risk officer in November 2007, said in a statement that he communicated with Prince “almost daily” about the company’s risks and had a “regular, weekly one-on-one meeting” with the CEO. He also regularly provided reports to the board of directors , he said. Bushnell said he oversaw a team of 2,700 “highly qualified risk professionals.” The depth of the housing crisis took them by surprise, he said. “In this case, our method of analysis was not enough,” Bushnell said. “Risk models, which primarily use history as their guide, assumed that any annual decline in real-estate values would not exceed the worst-case historical precedent.” ‘Efficient Use of Capital’ Dominguez, who was co-head of Citigroup’s CDO business from 2006 to 2007, said in a prepared statement that his business produced $400 million in “total annual revenue in 2005 and 2006.” The revenue included fees from setting up the deals as well as profits from trading them, he said. The bank’s executives believed that retaining the super- senior CDO bonds was an “efficient use of capital and Citi’s balance sheet,” Dominguez said. The bank took a $14.3 billion writedown on CDOs in the fourth quarter of 2007 alone, according to Bushnell. “I believed then, and still believe now, that Citi’s CDO business was performing an important function in the capital markets” by serving investor demand for the securities, Dominguez said. To contact the reporter on this story: Bradley Keoun in New York at bkeoun@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

`Jackpot’ Fees for Placement Agents Brings Calpers Clash With Blackstone

April 7, 2010

By Michael B. Marois April 7 (Bloomberg) — Blackstone Group LP , the world’s largest private equity firm, is challenging a California Public Employees’ Retirement System proposal to prohibit money managers from dangling contingency fees in front of middlemen who help win pension fund contracts. Calpers, the largest U.S. public pension at $209 billion, is pressing for a law requiring so-called placement agents to register as lobbyists and ending pay-for-success arrangements similar to those of personal-injury lawyers. The bill is to get its first public airing at a legislative hearing today. “The contingency fees are too much of a jackpot for the placement agents,” California Treasurer Bill Lockyer , a Democrat and member of the Calpers board, said in a telephone interview. They “invite corrupt practices,” he said. The proposal follows federal and state investigations into influence peddling for access to the $2 trillion in U.S. public retirement funds. Calpers said in December that a former board member received more than $59 million soliciting business for investment companies such as Apollo Management LP . Placement agents working for private equity, hedge funds, venture capital and real estate firms typically earn the equivalent of 0.5 percent to 3 percent of the money they place under the management of their client, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association , the brokerage industry’s biggest lobbying group. Sifma opposes the legislation. $120 Million in Settlements At least 11 investment firms and individuals have paid more than $120 million to settle with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo , a Democrat, in his probe of corruption in that state’s $129 billion pension fund, the third-largest in the U.S. Six people have pleaded guilty to criminal charges including David Loglisci , New York’s former chief investment officer. California Attorney General Jerry Brown , also a Democrat, is likewise investigating and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Los Angeles office is heading an inquiry into California pension funds, court documents show. Blackstone, based in New York, owns a placement-agent unit called Park Hill Group that’s solicited more than $110 billion for private equity, hedge fund, venture capital and real estate funds, according to its Web site. Placement agents work much the same way as municipal bond underwriters, putting months of effort into a deal and getting paid only when the debt is sold, Blackstone spokesman Peter Rose said. If the sale is canceled, they don’t make money. ‘Hire a Middleman’ “It’s just like the state of California looking to sell bonds,” he said. “They would hire a middleman to market those bonds to whoever buys bonds.” Blackstone is employing California Strategies LLC , a firm with a roster of former state officials, to lobby against the contingency fee provision of the bill, Rose said. Blackstone and Sifma contend that smaller investment firms, unable to afford in-house marketing teams or retainers for placement agents, would be helpless to market themselves without the use of contingency fees. “None of us in the industry like the scandals that have broken out in places like New York and California,” Rose said. “But a ban on contingency fees is harmful on these smaller funds that don’t get the fees until they get the money to invest.” New, Small Managers Calpers says that’s just not true. A senior pension fund manager is wholly committed to looking for new or small money- managers, Lockyer said. A dedicated e-mail account allows such firms to send proposals directly to Calpers’ investment staff. “Of the small funds that have approached Calpers, fewer than half have actually used a placement agent,” Calpers Chief Investment Officer Joe Dear told the fund’s board in March. “There’s clear evidence in past practice that it’s possible to develop an investment relationship with us by making a normal approach, without the assistance of a contingent-paid placement agent.” For the bill to become law, amending the state’s Political Reform Act of 1974, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. If it fails, Lockyer said, he’ll propose an outright ban on placement agents at Calpers and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the second-biggest U.S. public pension fund. To contact the reporter on this story: Michael B. Marois in Sacramento at mmarois@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Richard Laermer: Sorry, Big Doesn’t Get the Job Done!

April 6, 2010

The CEO of a fast-growing software company recently smacked me with a question: Why should he hire RLM PR , a 13-person firm, instead of a so-called name firm that came to him and promised him the moon and stars and the cover of the Wall Street Journal –and slickly so. Having been CEO of a choose-to-be-small service business for 19 years, I was confused by this query. What’s a name? And, never one to say “no” to a challenge, nor take anything to the next level, I am answering him in a public forum. If you are running a service business and your clients are successful, no one questions how big a name you have. We purposely work against the ginormous model. Many of our Account Executives worked at the sausage factory PR firms, and they came to us excelling at glossy reports with little to no substance (though those fonts are gorgeous). We wrangle that habit out of people by the end of week one. People find out quickly that a smaller firm doesn’t say “yes” to make a client happy. We also have dirty hands. We don’t send Guess What You Rock memos every day. Most name-free companies don’t have the manpower or the patience for that nonsense. Soon after a service business like ours is hired by a solid, innovative, and driven client, the company discovers that the once-beloved habit of sharing fine meals with their PR firm is a waste of good talent. They realize they’d rather the folks at our place work their heart outs–in our case calling, Skype-ing, tweeting, SMSing, emailing, carrier-pigeoning, mailing, and stopping over to see the media and other influential types–instead of composing truckloads of memorandums they’re not going to read anyway. Little guys like us also have the luxury of time to drum up well thought-out counsel that often consists of, you got it, arguments. A client with an itch to Do Something Really Big will be told that no matter how much fun the gimmick seems, if it will not make a dent in sales why bother? Our ideas are large and in charge–but they always make the client money. Small firms are composed of highly respected pros, particularly in a space as crowded as ours, who work hard and don’t look to be hand-held (though they all want iPads to hold). They are media junkies who either know it or will discover it all, because their passion for being in PR (and learning every day) is obvious. So it is absurd for me to compare ourselves to better known anythings. Comically, one of the largest PR firms once asked us to partner with them solely because they liked our out-of-the-bun concepts for getting noticed above the noise and recognized they had none. (Their CMO asked me what outside consultant we paid to come up with our ideas. I’m still shaking my head.) When I asked why they called, the manager said: “We don’t have any horses here.” I think he meant people who do real work: maybe he liked ponies. An independent agency can make its own rules. We are lucky. No committees! A young person working here can wake up one day and say “Let’s…” and by noon it’s in process. Large firms do gobs of hourly billings; spend full days on budgeting; do most everything via commitease ; worry about their own business model a lot more than any client’s; bring slick/flashy production values to the smallest presentations; charge two to three times the small- to mid-size fees of firms like mine; and are near impossible to get on the phone when you feel the need. We spend cash hiring the best PR pros on this and other planets; and on budding technology and research tools so that we are in the know 24 hours a day. Oh, and we spend a small fortune on coffee. But we don’t have fancy anything. In short, we deliver substantiated results for a lower cost than name-brand cretins, I mean competitors. If your service firm has the right number of super-skilled folks, and you take an aggressive approach to doing what you do every darn day, then who really cares what size? The larger firms, unlike us, bill clients by the hour and often take months to formulate plans and market a message before any real work takes place. We can’t afford to do that (and are bored too easily). We have to look good quickly. The non-names like us are strategic partners whose CEOs (ahem) study your business to find holes that need filling; everyone on the team comes up with smart, doable ideas for the future. Your goals to be tattooed on our foreheads. If a budding brand wants a real strategic partner, call the hungry men and women, reach out to the ones who are not famous and talked about. Though to be honest, “unknown” is a misnomer, since to be accused of that someone has to know you! Size is to be a topic in the bedroom to be parked outside the conference room. The above points should suffice (they made me feel better) as an opportunistic demonstration that a name is merely a “moniker” with a mighty good press agent. *** *** *** I am doing a lot of thinking out loud on Twitter… @laermer

Read the full article →

APAC Customer Services Selects New Global Vice President, Client Solutions

April 1, 2010

BANNOCKBURN, IL–(Marketwire – April 1, 2010) –   APAC Customer Services ( NASDAQ : APAC ), a global provider of outsourced solutions, today announced the appointment of Ruth M. O’Brien as Global Vice President, Client Solutions, effective March 8, 2010.

Read the full article →

APAC Customer Services Selects New Global Vice President, Client Solutions

April 1, 2010

BANNOCKBURN, IL–(Marketwire – April 1, 2010) –   APAC Customer Services ( NASDAQ : APAC ), a global provider of outsourced solutions, today announced the appointment of Ruth M. O’Brien as Global Vice President, Client Solutions, effective March 8, 2010.

Read the full article →

Research Now Continues to Strengthen Presence in the Middle East

March 31, 2010

Nader Kobeissi Joins as Vice President, Client Development

Read the full article →

Adele Scheele: Career Coaching 101

March 23, 2010

A reader of my last blog, “Make This Your Championship Season,” asked me to explain what to expect from a career coach and how she might find one to work with. Here goes: What to Expect from Working with a Career Coach: If you were my client, I would begin by asking you to state the goal of the session. In other words, what do you want? I need you to articulate this at the start. Sometimes these are easy questions, particularly if you need a job immediately. Sometimes they are deceptively easy like when you are having trouble with your boss or colleagues or are baffled or bored with the work you do. Sometimes, they are quite profound if you are searching for something more significant, your calling. The odd part is, often what you confess in the last five minutes is quite different from what you talk about during the first fifty-five minutes. I try to help you arrive at that deeper meaning earlier in the session. To do that, I ask you about you about your background in detail so that I can see your patterns of interests, levels of risk, opportunities taken or missed, people who have or have not acted as guides to you. Based on what you tell me about such relationships and activities, I know more about how much and at what level to advise you wherever you are in the early, mid, or late stages of your careering process. No, I don’t use the typical diagnostic tools; personality tests, vocational tests that other coaches and counselors turn to. People love these tests, and they promise answers. But I find that they don’t tell enough or, worse, are misleading. The Myers-Briggs is, in fact, based on Jung’s archetypes, which, in turn, are based on astrology. I am interested in astrology personally, but not as a career guide. They can be too definite or exclusive. Think of the personality needed to be a lawyer or a manager or an architect; you can be successful whether you are introverted or extroverted. It really doesn’t matter. I help you find a path to do the job you want in the way that suits and satisfies you. Only after you reveal to me what you want, even if you are not sure, can I suggest a strategy and ask you if you agree. We talk about it and modify or even change it. You use me as a sounding board, and I, in turn, move to get a better idea of an initial plan for you. I give you an assignment based on steps toward getting you to what you want and need — finding more information, calling contacts, writing a business plan, strategizing a way to talk to your boss or potential boss, negotiating with a group, or searching for a job. We don’t do this all at once, but in appropriate steps that build toward your ultimate goals and success. My assignments are totally different from the homework you did for school, which got you a grade but turned to dust a second after you turned it in. This homework is transformative. It changes how you think and live and will work. Trust me, it won’t feel anything like school work because it will make you feel better every step of the way. If you are like most people, you won’t do it well or at all. Not at first, anyway. Why not? It’s that old Duke Ellington quote, over and over, “Don’t give me time; give me a deadline!” We need deadlines for adrenalin to kick in and to push us to keep our promises. I know that from my own procrastination as well as from my clients’. That’s why I ask for due dates. That’s why I help you rehearse your pitch for a new job or a promotion. That’s why I break down your assignment into doable steps. Sometimes I ask you to email or call me between sessions to keep your motivation up and your attention out. Most of us are scared to death about our own possibilities. But that’s precisely the reason you want a career coach in your corner: to get you where you long to be, doing the work that serves you and your group well. How Can I Find a Good Career Coach? As in any field, recommendations are still the best indicator. How would you find a good eye doctor? You ask your friends who, in turn, would ask theirs. Then you would check them out online. The same process goes for finding coaches. If your inquiries don’t lead to a suggestion, try searching, say on Google. You want to find a coach who has demonstrated work experience, proven knowledge of the career process, published books or articles that you read and admire, as well as a personality that suits you. A tall order. To fill it, you may find that the best career coach for you isn’t even living in your own city. So, rather than settle, you could have phone sessions. I, myself, have clients who I have worked with but have never met in person. It still works. It’s worth your investment. Your need for a job, for a living wage, and for meaningful work that fulfills you is critical now and always. A coach’s educational specialty is helpful–my PhD is in Change Management from UCLA and my dissertation identified success skills–but it should not be determinative. Having coached a wide array of professionals and businesspeople for years– from running the Career Center at CSUN and coaching the academic counselors to guiding careers at companies like P&G and 3M– I can attest to the fact that experience is the most important criterion when choosing a career coach. This is something you should look closely for. You need someone who is not only intuitive and understanding enough to figure out where you are and want to be, but is also intelligent, savvy, and strong enough to take you there.

Read the full article →

China May Seek at Least Five Years in Prison for Rio Workers, Lawyer Says

March 22, 2010

By Bloomberg News March 23 (Bloomberg) — China may seek prison sentences of at least five years for Australian Stern Hu and his three Rio Tinto Group colleagues after accusing them of taking bribes to sell iron ore, said a lawyer representing one of the defendants. Hu, Liu Caikui , Wang Yong and Ge Minqiang are charged with taking bribes exceeding 86.6 million yuan ($13 million), said Tao Wuping, who represented Liu at the hearing yesterday at the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. Hu has pleaded guilty to the bribery charges, said Tao, adding that his client won’t plead innocence. A prison term may further test relations between China and Australia, already frayed by the arrests and Rio’s rejection of a $19.5 billion investment from state-owned Aluminum Corp. of China, or Chinalco. Australia protested against China’s decision to hold part of the trial behind closed doors and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said the world is watching the trial. “It looks like this is a very difficult case for Australia and Rio Tinto,” said Shujie Yao, professor of economics and head of the contemporary Chinese studies school at the U.K. University of Nottingham. “It really depends on the diplomatic effort by Australia. If China considers the diplomatic and political effort, and compromises, then they will reduce the sentence.” Before his arrest, Hu was the head of London-based Rio’s iron ore unit in China. Rio is the world’s second-largest supplier of the steelmaking material. Hu was accused of taking bribes worth 1 million yuan and $790,000, Tom Connor, Australia’s consul-general in Shanghai, said yesterday. ‘Some Admissions’ “Hu made some admissions concerning those two bribery amounts,” Connor said. “The Australian government will make a considered statement about the trial” later, he said. Foreign media including Bloomberg News were barred from the court proceedings yesterday, the first of three days of trial. Tony Shaffer , a Melbourne-based spokesman for Rio, said the company would not comment while the trial was in progress. Liu, who faces bribery charges involving about 3.7 million yuan, “doesn’t plan to plead innocence,” said lawyer Tao. Wang Yong faces bribery charges involving more than 70 million yuan, and Ge Minqiang charges involving about 6.9 million yuan, Tao said. The maximum sentence sought could be 15 years, he said. The four are also charged with infringing commercial secrets, according to the Web site of the Shanghai court, which lists three days for the trial. No date was given for the expected verdicts. ‘Fully Protected’ Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang last week said that the rights of the defendants “will be fully protected” and that the trial shouldn’t be “politicized.” The portion of the hearing relating to the infringement is closed and no public commentary can be made, lawyer Tao said. Lawyers representing the other three defendants couldn’t be reached for a comment. “I can only say we respectfully await the outcome of the Chinese legal process,” Rio’s Chief Executive Officer Tom Albanese said in a speech yesterday in Beijing, where he is attending the China Development Forum. “This issue is obviously of great concern to us, as it would be for any company operating in China.” China is Australia’s biggest trading partner with two-way trade valued at A$83 billion ($76 billion) in the 12 months ended June 30. Rio’s overall sales to China overtook North America and Europe in 2009, reaching 24.3 percent of total revenue from 18.8 percent a year earlier, it said on Feb. 11. Giving Bribes Tan Yixin , an official with Shougang Corp. , and Wang Hongjiu of Laiwu Group, were named in the prosecutors’ case as giving bribes to the Rio Tinto employees, lawyer Tao said. The Chinese companies couldn’t be reached for a comment. Chinese steelmakers last year failed to agree to annual prices with Rio after rejecting a 33 percent price cut as insufficient. Talks to settle this year’s prices with Rio, Vale SA and BHP Billiton Ltd., the biggest suppliers, have stalled. Chinese mills oppose a demand by suppliers to increase prices by as much as 90 percent, the China Iron & Steel Association said March 16. “A positive relationship with this market is vital to the continued success of our company,” Rio’s Albanese said in his speech yesterday. The relationship with Chinalco is “important to us,” he also said. Chinalco Venture Chinalco on March 19 agreed to pay $1.35 billion for a 44.65 percent share in Rio’s Simandou iron ore project in Guinea. The deposit was described by Albanese in 2008 as the world’s “top” undeveloped iron ore deposit. Beijing-based Chinalco is also Rio’s largest shareholder. Rio canceled Chinalco’s investment plan last June in favor of a joint venture with rival BHP and a share sale, following protests from shareholders and Australian politicians. Rio’s Hu is a classically trained violinist who chose his English first name after virtuoso Isaac Stern . He became an Australian citizen in the early 1990s after joining technology firm AWA Ltd. to run its Beijing office, The Australian newspaper reported July 15. — Stephanie Wong , Helen Yuan and Jesse Riseborough , with assistance from Debra Mao . Editors: Tan Hwee Ann , Tony Barrett To contact the Bloomberg News staff on this story: Helen Yuan in Shanghai at hyuan@bloomberg.net Rebecca Keenan in Melbourne at rkeenan5@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Rob Parenteau: The Hyperinflation Hyperventalists

March 19, 2010

After a two day blogging slugfest on fiscal deficits, I find that the question of hyperinflation now demands an answer. And here it is: fiscal deficit spending may be a necessary condition of hyperinflation, but it is hardly a sufficient condition. Think this is yet another rant against the “deficit errorists?” Think again. Paul Krugman treated this question in his March 18th New York Times column: Hyperinflation is actually a quite well understood phenomenon, and its causes aren’t especially controversial among economists. It’s basically about revenue: when governments can’t either raise taxes or borrow to pay for their spending, they sometimes turn to the printing press, trying to extract large amounts of seignorage — revenue from money creation. This leads to inflation, which leads people to hold down their cash holdings, which means that the printing presses have to run faster to buy the same amount of resources, and so on. Krugman locates the source of hyperinflation in what is termed the “monetization” of fiscal deficit spending. He then attributes its perpetuation to shifts in the liquidity preferences of people — that is, the share of their portfolio that households and firms wish to hold in cash or cash like investment instruments (think Treasury bills, or money market mutual funds, for example). Krugman’s logic means that even the liberal wing, or the saltwater contingent, of the economics world has a touch of deficit errorism. We would invite Paul to take a closer look at the UBS research on public debt to GDP ratios and inflation first released last summer, reprinted in a FT Alphaville note, and discussed on Naked Capitalism . The story of inflation and fiscal deficits is more ambiguous, or at least more complex than the deficit errorists would have you believe. Coincidentally, an investment manager friend forwarded me a letter that Ebullio Capital Management* allegedly sent to its clients after February’s investment results, which took them down nearly 96% for the year – virtually wiping out their stellar gains of the prior two years. The letter reveals that Ebullio was so ebullient about the possibility (inevitability?) of hyperinflation emerging from recent policy excesses that they bet the ranch on hyperinflation plays in the commodity corner of the investing world (metals), and lost big time. While we still have questions as to whether this is a spoof or not, there are undoubtedly people sitting around in gold wondering whether the old yellow dog is going to get up and bark again anytime soon. Although hyperinflation hyperventilation has been catching on in recent months, especially amongst the deficit errorists, gold has been dead money since late November 2009. What gives? As a piece I wrote in the July issue of The Richebacher Letter explains, hyperinflation requires extreme conditions not just on the demand side, but on the supply side as well. A month after the Richebacher piece, Bill Mitchell published a similar conclusion . To summarize our findings: on the demand side, in order for household spending power to keep up with rising prices, household nominal incomes or credit access must be ratcheted up in synch with price hikes. Otherwise, the price hikes will not stick. Households will have to pull back less-essential spending areas to afford the same quantity of goods in essential items. So your gas, home heating oil, health care, or food bill goes up, and you cut back on your restaurant and entertainment spending, unless your paycheck also increases, or you can tap more credit. That is why hyperinflation episodes need more than just deficit spending. It is true, as Marshall Auerback and I explained in a recent New Deal 2.0 post , that fiscal deficits increase the net cash flow for the household sector as a whole. But we also usually observe some sort of escalator clauses or cost of living adjustment mechanisms built into wage contracts that allow this ratcheting up of household income pari passu with the inflation hikes. Take that element away — and it is a recurring theme in historical episodes of hyperinflation — and households cannot keep up with hyperinflation. The higher prices cannot get validated by higher consumer spending. The hyperinflation flares out. Beyond this demand side component, which is scarcely to be found in the US wage contracts these days (although we must mention it is built into some government benefit programs like social security), there is the supply side issue. Productive capacity must be closed or abandoned in order for the hyperinflation to really rip. There is a built-in dynamic that encourages this. As the hyperinflation gets recognized, entrepreneurs eventually figure out that they would be much better off speculating in commodities (like Ebullio), buying farmland, chasing gold and other precious metals, or more generally, repositioning their portfolios and reinvesting their profits in tangible assets with relatively fixed supplies. That is, goods that are fairly nonreproducible become stores of value, as it is their prices that tend to rise most swiftly, since higher prices cannot, by definition, elicit any new supplies. Hence, those of you who lived through the ’70s (and still remember what you were doing) will recall high net worth households were busy hoarding ancient Chinese ceramics while the middle class was chasing residential real estate, and the stock market basically went sideways. In the case of the Weimar Republic following WWI, and Zimbabwe most recently, remember that war (civil or international), has an impeccable way of destroying productive capacity in a nation, or rerouting it to the production of war material. In the Weimar episode, the final back-breaking run up in hyperinflation accompanied the occupation by the French of the Ruhr Valley, which held a fair concentration of German production facilities. In solidarity with the workers who struck those plants in response, the Weimar Republic continued to pay the workers through fiscal measures. Cut production, but continue income flows, and you have the recipe for the kind of unresolved distributional conflict that often lies at the heart of the inflation process. Mainstream economics and popular lore refuse to see this. Suffice it to say that hyperinflation takes a very special set of conditions. It is not, contra Paul Krugman, all about fiscal deficits, nor is it only about fiscal deficits. That is why we do not see hyperinflation breaking out all over the place on any given day, despite the fact the governments have to first create the money that you and I use to pay taxes or buy Treasury bonds (because even though we “make” money, we cannot create it, without risking a spell in jail for counterfeiting). Know your history. Try not to pass out with the hyperventilating hyperinflationistas: they are a particularly virulent wing of the deficit errorists, and they may simply leave you in a state similar to the one alleged to have been experienced by Ebullio Capital Management’s clients. P.S. I have a piece called “On Fiscal Correctness and Animal Sacrifices” appearing on several blogs that formed the basis for the March 2009 Richebacher Letter. It is crucial that this piece get into the hands of Paul Krugman. If anyone knows how to get to him, I would be much obliged. His July 15th, 2009 NY Times diagram, which I call the Krugman Curve, has planted a seed that he would benefit greatly from watering. I believe it would help him escape the trap of continually returning to the manipulation of real interests rates (now requiring that he advocate central banks push a credible plan to deliver higher inflation in perpetuity, since policy rates are near the zero nominal bound in many places) as the holy grail for all countries operating below potential output. Time for him to exit from the IS/LM straight jacket, which even Sir John Hicks, one of its fathers, had his sincere doubts about, as well as the intertemporal utility maximization straight jacket of his more orthodox contemporaries. He knows how to do it…he just does not know it yet, which is why this paper needs to get in his hands, and soon, before the deficit errorists claim him as one of their own. * You can go to Ebullio’s website , but unfortunately, authorization is required to see their performance, their track record, and their client letters. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.

Read the full article →

Rob Parenteau: The Hyperinflation Hyperventalists

March 19, 2010

After a two day blogging slugfest on fiscal deficits, I find that the question of hyperinflation now demands an answer. And here it is: fiscal deficit spending may be a necessary condition of hyperinflation, but it is hardly a sufficient condition. Think this is yet another rant against the “deficit errorists?” Think again. Paul Krugman treated this question in his March 18th New York Times column: Hyperinflation is actually a quite well understood phenomenon, and its causes aren’t especially controversial among economists. It’s basically about revenue: when governments can’t either raise taxes or borrow to pay for their spending, they sometimes turn to the printing press, trying to extract large amounts of seignorage — revenue from money creation. This leads to inflation, which leads people to hold down their cash holdings, which means that the printing presses have to run faster to buy the same amount of resources, and so on. Krugman locates the source of hyperinflation in what is termed the “monetization” of fiscal deficit spending. He then attributes its perpetuation to shifts in the liquidity preferences of people — that is, the share of their portfolio that households and firms wish to hold in cash or cash like investment instruments (think Treasury bills, or money market mutual funds, for example). Krugman’s logic means that even the liberal wing, or the saltwater contingent, of the economics world has a touch of deficit errorism. We would invite Paul to take a closer look at the UBS research on public debt to GDP ratios and inflation first released last summer, reprinted in a FT Alphaville note, and discussed on Naked Capitalism . The story of inflation and fiscal deficits is more ambiguous, or at least more complex than the deficit errorists would have you believe. Coincidentally, an investment manager friend forwarded me a letter that Ebullio Capital Management* allegedly sent to its clients after February’s investment results, which took them down nearly 96% for the year – virtually wiping out their stellar gains of the prior two years. The letter reveals that Ebullio was so ebullient about the possibility (inevitability?) of hyperinflation emerging from recent policy excesses that they bet the ranch on hyperinflation plays in the commodity corner of the investing world (metals), and lost big time. While we still have questions as to whether this is a spoof or not, there are undoubtedly people sitting around in gold wondering whether the old yellow dog is going to get up and bark again anytime soon. Although hyperinflation hyperventilation has been catching on in recent months, especially amongst the deficit errorists, gold has been dead money since late November 2009. What gives? As a piece I wrote in the July issue of The Richebacher Letter explains, hyperinflation requires extreme conditions not just on the demand side, but on the supply side as well. A month after the Richebacher piece, Bill Mitchell published a similar conclusion . To summarize our findings: on the demand side, in order for household spending power to keep up with rising prices, household nominal incomes or credit access must be ratcheted up in synch with price hikes. Otherwise, the price hikes will not stick. Households will have to pull back less-essential spending areas to afford the same quantity of goods in essential items. So your gas, home heating oil, health care, or food bill goes up, and you cut back on your restaurant and entertainment spending, unless your paycheck also increases, or you can tap more credit. That is why hyperinflation episodes need more than just deficit spending. It is true, as Marshall Auerback and I explained in a recent New Deal 2.0 post , that fiscal deficits increase the net cash flow for the household sector as a whole. But we also usually observe some sort of escalator clauses or cost of living adjustment mechanisms built into wage contracts that allow this ratcheting up of household income pari passu with the inflation hikes. Take that element away — and it is a recurring theme in historical episodes of hyperinflation — and households cannot keep up with hyperinflation. The higher prices cannot get validated by higher consumer spending. The hyperinflation flares out. Beyond this demand side component, which is scarcely to be found in the US wage contracts these days (although we must mention it is built into some government benefit programs like social security), there is the supply side issue. Productive capacity must be closed or abandoned in order for the hyperinflation to really rip. There is a built-in dynamic that encourages this. As the hyperinflation gets recognized, entrepreneurs eventually figure out that they would be much better off speculating in commodities (like Ebullio), buying farmland, chasing gold and other precious metals, or more generally, repositioning their portfolios and reinvesting their profits in tangible assets with relatively fixed supplies. That is, goods that are fairly nonreproducible become stores of value, as it is their prices that tend to rise most swiftly, since higher prices cannot, by definition, elicit any new supplies. Hence, those of you who lived through the ’70s (and still remember what you were doing) will recall high net worth households were busy hoarding ancient Chinese ceramics while the middle class was chasing residential real estate, and the stock market basically went sideways. In the case of the Weimar Republic following WWI, and Zimbabwe most recently, remember that war (civil or international), has an impeccable way of destroying productive capacity in a nation, or rerouting it to the production of war material. In the Weimar episode, the final back-breaking run up in hyperinflation accompanied the occupation by the French of the Ruhr Valley, which held a fair concentration of German production facilities. In solidarity with the workers who struck those plants in response, the Weimar Republic continued to pay the workers through fiscal measures. Cut production, but continue income flows, and you have the recipe for the kind of unresolved distributional conflict that often lies at the heart of the inflation process. Mainstream economics and popular lore refuse to see this. Suffice it to say that hyperinflation takes a very special set of conditions. It is not, contra Paul Krugman, all about fiscal deficits, nor is it only about fiscal deficits. That is why we do not see hyperinflation breaking out all over the place on any given day, despite the fact the governments have to first create the money that you and I use to pay taxes or buy Treasury bonds (because even though we “make” money, we cannot create it, without risking a spell in jail for counterfeiting). Know your history. Try not to pass out with the hyperventilating hyperinflationistas: they are a particularly virulent wing of the deficit errorists, and they may simply leave you in a state similar to the one alleged to have been experienced by Ebullio Capital Management’s clients. P.S. I have a piece called “On Fiscal Correctness and Animal Sacrifices” appearing on several blogs that formed the basis for the March 2009 Richebacher Letter. It is crucial that this piece get into the hands of Paul Krugman. If anyone knows how to get to him, I would be much obliged. His July 15th, 2009 NY Times diagram, which I call the Krugman Curve, has planted a seed that he would benefit greatly from watering. I believe it would help him escape the trap of continually returning to the manipulation of real interests rates (now requiring that he advocate central banks push a credible plan to deliver higher inflation in perpetuity, since policy rates are near the zero nominal bound in many places) as the holy grail for all countries operating below potential output. Time for him to exit from the IS/LM straight jacket, which even Sir John Hicks, one of its fathers, had his sincere doubts about, as well as the intertemporal utility maximization straight jacket of his more orthodox contemporaries. He knows how to do it…he just does not know it yet, which is why this paper needs to get in his hands, and soon, before the deficit errorists claim him as one of their own. * You can go to Ebullio’s website , but unfortunately, authorization is required to see their performance, their track record, and their client letters. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0.

Read the full article →

Milberg’s Former Class-Action Kings, Out of Prison, Head for Links, Slopes

March 19, 2010

By Carlyn Kolker March 19 (Bloomberg) — The four lawyers who ran Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, the firm that got investors $45 billion from securities lawsuits against publicly traded companies, are reacquainting themselves with life on the outside now that they’ve left prison. “I am enjoying my freedom,” Melvyn I. Weiss , 74, said in a phone interview from his apartment in Boca Raton, Florida. “I am honing my skills at golf. I am thinking about the experience I just went through and what I should do with it.” His former partner, William S. Lerach , 64, was freed March 8. Two others, David J. Bershad , 70, and Steven G. Schulman , 58, left prison in July. Prosecutors said the men, who industrialized the filing of securities fraud class actions, secretly paid clients to pursue such cases, bringing the firm $251 million in attorney fees from 1979 and 2005. All four pleaded guilty. Their old firm, now Milberg LLP , agreed to pay $75 million to end the case. Milberg, based in New York, used intermediaries to pay clients who would serve as plaintiffs in shareholder lawsuits, the government said. The practice helped the firm file cases faster than rivals at a time when being first to sue meant it would likely control the case, reap a larger reward in the verdict or settlement, and get bigger fees. Bershad was first to plead guilty in Los Angeles federal court in July 2007, agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors. He was followed by Schulman, Lerach and finally Weiss, who pleaded guilty in April 2008 to racketeering conspiracy. “It’s no fun being in prison,” Lerach said in an interview when asked about his time behind bars. “You are away from your family, your loved ones and your dogs.” Lists of Clients Before the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a law aimed squarely at Milberg Weiss, shareholder lawyers seeking to lead class actions, or group suits, needed simply to be the first to file. Law firms had lists of clients who owned shares in huge companies that were considered susceptible to litigation. The reform act required plaintiffs with the biggest losses, usually institutional investors such as pension funds, to assume the lead plaintiff role, regardless of who filed first. Milberg Weiss and firms like it adapted by lobbying state and union pension funds to hire them as regular counsel. Even with the restrictions, Weiss’s firm collected $1.7 billion in legal fees and expenses from 1995 and 2005, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. The firm also handled 43 percent of the 755 shareholder class actions that settled. Six Month Sentences Bershad and Schulman were given six-month sentences when they were sentenced for the client-kickback scheme. Lerach received two years and Weiss 2 1/2 years. All four men, once feared in corporate boardrooms, have been disbarred. Weiss said he is practicing his golf swing, doing charitable work and considering assisting the Haitian art community, all while reflecting on his prison experience. “At my age it’s not easy,” he said of being incarcerated. “You have to get used to sleeping on a one-inch mattress on a metal frame, sharing toilets with 80 other guys. The food is not what you’re used to. The medical facilities are vastly understaffed.” Weiss added that, in prison, “you meet a lot of people who you feel a great deal of sorrow for, because they have grown up in sad conditions and there is seemingly no way out for them. These are all things that I am thinking about.” As one of the oldest inmates at the low-security prison in Morgantown , West Virginia, Weiss said he was given the moniker ‘Pops.’ Mel ‘Pops’ Weiss “They would call me Pops, because some of these people never had a father,” the ex-lawyer explained. Weiss declined to discuss any involvement with his former law firm. He was released from federal custody Feb. 5, after serving his last month and a half in home confinement. Lerach said he plans to teach a course titled “Regulation of Free Market Capitalism — Why We Have Failed,” at a law school he declined to name. He is also planning to lecture at universities and work with a progressive think-tank, Lerach said in a phone interview from a ski vacation in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. His future also includes trout fishing in Alaska and exploring his roots in Bavaria, he said. While in Prison While in prisons in Lompoc, California, and Safford, Arizona, Lerach read books, kept a diary and stayed abreast of the financial crisis, he said. “I tried to stay current on the events by watching financial and other news. You sometimes have to push and shove to get CNBC on rather than big truck crash programs, but that was all right,” said Lerach, who also spent time in a halfway house and home confinement. Schulman declined to comment. “Right now I am getting my life together,” said Bershad, when reached at his home in Montclair, New Jersey. “I am happy and doing fine.” Of his prison time in Otisville , New York, he said, “It was a learning experience.” He declined to give details about what he is doing. Lerach left Milberg Weiss in 2004 to help found his own securities-fraud firm in San Diego. He said he won’t be returning. Coughlin Stoia That firm, now called Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP , has more than 150 lawyers, partner Michael Dowd said. It is changing its name to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as partner Patrick Coughlin , who negotiated a $7.2 billion settlement for Enron Corp. investors, steps down from partnership status. The Milberg firm paid the government more than two-thirds of the $75 million it owes, ahead of the five-year schedule set forth in its plea agreement, partner Matthew Gluck said in a phone interview. “Over the past couple of years, while everybody has been laying off lawyers and cutting pay, we’ve been giving lawyers raises and extra bonuses,” Gluck said. To contact the reporter on this story: Carlyn Kolker in New York at ckolker@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Gregory Smith Appointed Vice President of Client Relations at Exigen Insurance Solutions

March 17, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO, CA–(Marketwire – March 17, 2010) –  Exigen Insurance Solutions ( www.exigeninsurance.com ), a leading provider of insurance core systems , announces that Gregory Smith has been appointed vice president, Client Relations. Smith is responsible for global customer relationships with a key focus on ensuring the best execution and outcome-based alignment of goals through facilitating the initial client engagement, understanding business objectives and establishing a blueprint for business transformation.

Read the full article →

Dick Fuld May Be Haunted by Assurances After Report Finds Hidden Leverage

March 13, 2010

By Joshua Gallu and David Scheer March 13 (Bloomberg) — Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Richard Fuld exuded confidence as he briefed analysts on June 16, 2008, four days after demoting his firm’s finance chief in the wake of a $2.8 billion quarterly loss. “I am the one who ultimately signs off and I’m comfortable with our valuations at the end of our second quarter,” then- Chief Executive Officer Fuld said on the conference call. “We have always had a rigorous internal process.” The rigor was based on a shaky foundation, according to a 2,200-page report about the firm’s demise by Anton Valukas , the examiner for the bankrupt firm. Lehman Brothers “reverse- engineered” a key measure of stability, masking the firm’s true financial condition , Valukas said. Some asset valuations were also “unreasonable,” he said. Keen to show that it had reduced leverage, a gauge of a company’s ability to withstand losses, Chief Financial Officer Ian Lowitt said on the June 16 call that the firm had shrunk its net leverage ratio to 12 times from 15.4 in the second quarter. It accomplished the feat by reducing net assets by $70 billion, said Lowitt, who had just replaced Erin Callan in his post. “We’re going to operate conservatively,” he said. Unbeknownst to shareholders, the firm was hiding $50 billion in assets through off-balance sheet transactions known as Repo 105s that temporarily removed holdings until days after the quarter closed, according to Valukas. In the first quarter, the firm had used the same strategy to hide $49 billion in assets, he said in the report. ‘Shenanigans’ Lehman Brothers actions amounted to no more than “shenanigans,” said Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Brad Hintz , a former Lehman chief financial officer. “If all you’re doing is hiding something behind the curtain, the financial strength isn’t there.” The repos helped prop up Lehman’s credit rating, Valukas said. The off-balance dealings required more collateral than if Lehman had opted for ordinary transactions visible to shareholders, he said. “Repos were just one of many ways to hide losses,” said Janet Tavakoli , president of Chicago-based financial consulting firm Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc. “All of the former investment banks used those techniques. All of them borrowed too much money and were overleveraged.” Lehman Brothers bolstered capital by raising about $12 billion from investors during the first half of 2008, a time when Valukas said the New York-based firm’s financial statements were misleading. ‘Grossly Negligent’ Investors included Blackrock Inc., the largest publicly traded fund manager in the U.S., a venture run by former American International Group Inc. CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, and New Jersey government retirees. Fuld, 63, was “at least grossly negligent in causing Lehman Brothers to file misleading periodic reports,” Valukas said. Fuld’s lawyer, Patricia Hynes , disputed the examiner’s conclusions. “Mr. Fuld did not know what those transactions were — he didn’t structure or negotiate them, nor was he aware of their accounting treatment,” Hynes said in a statement. She also said none of Lehman’s senior financial officers, lawyers or outside auditors raised concern about the transactions with Fuld. Robert Cleary , a lawyer for Callan at Proskauer Rose, didn’t return a call seeking comment. Callan, 44, took a personal leave of absence last month from Swiss bank Credit Suisse Group AG, where she had worked since 2008. Real Estate Overvalued Lewis Liman , a lawyer for Lowitt, 46, said in an e-mail that his client did nothing wrong. Lowitt is now chief operating officer at Barclays Wealth Americas, whose parent, Barclays Plc, bought Lehman’s North American brokerage for $1.54 billion. In its final year, Lehman overvalued real-estate holdings, including a stake in U.S. apartment developer Archstone-Smith Trust, Valukas said. Lehman and Tishman Speyer Properties LP completed a joint acquisition of Archstone for $22 billion, including debt, in October 2007. Lehman presented “unreasonable” valuations of its Archstone stake in the first three quarters of 2008, overvaluing the holding by as much as $450 million in the second quarter, the examiner wrote. The bankruptcy case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporters on this story: Joshua Gallu in Washington at jgallu@bloomberg.net ; David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

JPMorgan, Citigroup Helped Doom Lehman, Report Says

March 12, 2010

By Linda Sandler, Bob Van Voris and Don Jeffrey March 12 (Bloomberg) — JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. helped cause the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. by demanding more collateral and changing guarantee agreements, according to a court-ordered report on the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history. “The demands for collateral by Lehman’s lenders had direct impact on Lehman’s liquidity,” said Anton Valukas , the bankruptcy examiner, in a 2,200-page document filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court. “Lehman’s available liquidity is central to the question of why Lehman failed.” Former Lehman Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld , ex- Chief Financial Officer Erin Callan , former Executive Vice President Ian Lowitt and former Managing Director Christopher O’Meara certified misleading statements about the bank’s finances, according to the report. Fuld, 63, was “at least grossly negligent,” Valukas said. New York-based Lehman collapsed in September 2008 with $639 billion in assets. In addition to his conclusions regarding New York-based Citigroup and JPMorgan, Valukas said of London-based Barclays Plc’s purchase of Lehman’s North American brokerage that a “limited amount of assets” belonging to Lehman were “improperly transferred to Barclays.” He added that the value of the assets may not be “material.” Kerrie Cohen , a Barclays spokeswoman in New York, and Brian Marchiony , a JPMorgan spokesman, declined to comment. Preliminary Review Danielle Romero-Apsilos , a spokeswoman for Citigroup, said in an e-mailed statement that the bank is reviewing the report, and that a preliminary analysis shows the examiner “has not identified any wrongdoing on Citi’s part.” Lewis Liman , a lawyer for Lowitt, who is now at Barclays, said in an e-mailed statement his client did nothing wrong. “In the three months during which he held the job, Mr. Lowitt worked diligently and faithfully to discharge all of his duties as Lehman’s CFO,” Liman said. “Any suggestion that Mr. Lowitt breached his fiduciary duties is baseless.” Barclays is Britain’s second-biggest bank. Citigroup is the third biggest U.S. bank, and JPMorgan is second. Bank of America Corp. is the biggest U.S. bank by assets. Fuld was warned months before the bankruptcy by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that Lehman might fail if it continued to report losses without finding a buyer or formulating a survival plan, according to Valukas’s report. ‘Grossly Negligent’ Fuld was “at least grossly negligent in causing Lehman to file misleading periodic reports” while its risks were rising because of long-term assets financed with short-term debt, Valukas said in the report. Lehman’s executives engaged in conduct ranging from “non- culpable errors of business judgment” to “actionable balance sheet manipulation,” as they used “accounting gimmicks” to move assets off the balance sheet without disclosing that to the government, rating-agencies, investors or Lehman’s board. Fuld’s lawyer, Patricia Hynes , disputed the examiner’s allegation that the Lehman estate has a claim against him relating to transactions called “Repo 105 transactions.” “Mr. Fuld did not know what those transactions were — he didn’t structure or negotiate them, nor was he aware of their accounting treatment,” Hynes said in a statement. She also said none of Lehman’s senior financial officers, lawyers or outside auditors raised concerns about the transactions with Fuld. Erika Burk, a lawyer who represents O’Meara in Lehman- related securities lawsuits, didn’t return a call seeking comment after regular business hours yesterday. Robert Cleary, a lawyer for Callan, said he hadn’t seen the report and declined to comment. A Judge’s Son Valukas, 66, a judge’s son, is chairman of the Chicago- based law firm Jenner & Block LLP, where his clients have included David Radler , Hollinger International Inc.’s former president. As U.S. Attorney in Chicago from 1985 to 1989, he was dubbed the Midwest’s Rudolph Giuliani for his hard line on white-collar crime, according to a 1989 New York Times profile. In his report, he said that Ernst & Young LLP, Lehman’s auditing firm, failed to question inadequate disclosures by the Lehman executives. The examiner said Lehman’s directors are “immunized from personal liability” concerning the way the company handled risk because management hadn’t presented any “red flags” to them. “Our last audit of the company was for the fiscal year ending Nov. 30, 2007,” said Charlie Perkins, a spokesman for Ernst & Young, in an e-mailed statement. “Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and we remain of that view.” $38 Million Valukas spent a year and $38 million producing the report. He interviewed more than 100 people including U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner , Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, and scrutinized more than 10 million documents, plus 20 million pages of e-mails from Lehman, according to filings in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. “There are a limited number of colorable claims for avoidance actions against JPMorgan and Citibank,” Valukas said in the report. He defined a colorable claim as sufficient credible evidence to persuade a jury to award damages at trial. Barclays bought Lehman’s brokerage for $1.54 billion. Lehman has sued Barclays for at least $5 billion, saying it made a “windfall” on the purchase. Barclays responded that it’s owed $3 billion. A bankruptcy-court trial is set for April 26. Improperly Transferred The assets improperly transferred to Barclays included equipment with a book value of less than $10 million and customer information of “questionable value” that Barclays didn’t obtain in a “wrongful or unlawful” way, Valukas said. He found “limited colorable claims” against the bank for the transfers. The examiner found no evidence that any securities transferred to Barclays in the sale of the brokerage were owned by Lehman or its affiliates. JPMorgan and Citigroup were two of New York-based Lehman’s main short-term lenders. On Feb. 24, Lehman said it settled with JPMorgan over the last of $29 billion in claims the bank filed against Lehman. Citigroup, which handled currency trades for Lehman, received a new guarantee from Lehman when the now-bankrupt firm was already insolvent and didn’t give enough value in return, the report said. “The examiner concludes that a colorable claim exists to avoid the amended guaranty as constructively fraudulent,” Valukas’s report said. Lehman CEO Bryan Marsal said in an e-mail that he would “carefully evaluate” Valukas’s report to assess how it might help “ongoing efforts to advance creditor interests.” The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporters on this story: Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net ; Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net ; Don Jeffrey in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York at djeffrey1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Petters Should Get 335 Years for $3.5 Billion Fraud, Prosecutors Recommend

March 9, 2010

By Bob Van Voris March 8 (Bloomberg) — Petters Group Worldwide LLC founder Thomas Petters , convicted of running a $3.5 billion fraud, should be sentenced to 335 years in prison, U.S. prosecutors recommended. Petters, 52, was convicted in December of 20 criminal counts in what prosecutors said is the biggest fraud in Minnesota history. In a sentencing memorandum filed today, they asked U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in St. Paul to give Petters the maximum sentence, more than twice the 150-year prison term given to Bernard Madoff . “The defendant’s fraud is staggering and unprecedented in size and impact on victims and the community,” prosecutors argued in the court filing. Petters ran a Minnetonka, Minnesota-based business empire that bought companies including Sun Country Airlines Inc. and Polaroid Corp. until federal agents raided his home and offices on Sept. 24, 2008. Petters used one of his companies, Petters Co. Inc., or PCI, in an illegal scheme that raised cash to support his money-losing businesses and lavish personal lifestyle, prosecutors said at his trial last year. Petters was convicted of all of the counts against him, including fraud, conspiracy and money laundering, by a federal jury in St. Paul. ‘Not Evil’ “Petters is imperfect, yes, but not evil,” said Paul Engh, one of Petters’s lawyers, in court papers also filed today, urging Kyle to sentence his client to less than 13 years. Prosecutors claim Petters used PCI to lure hedge funds and other investors into giving him money to finance non-existent deals to buy shipments of consumer goods. Government lawyers argued in their papers today that Petters defrauded his best friend, his father-in-law and a long- time business partner to keep his illegal scheme afloat. Other victims included “at least 10 pastors, three missionaries and dozens of retired, elderly individuals,” they said. Petters, who testified in his own defense, claimed he was innocent and that the fraud was committed without his knowledge by former company Vice President Deanna Coleman and Robert White , the company’s former chief financial officer. Petters also told jurors that the 2004 murder of his son forced him to rely on Coleman instead of paying attention to the affairs of his company. Secret Tapes During the trial, prosecutors played tape-recorded conversations secretly made by Coleman, who turned in Petters to the authorities and testified against him. “That Mr. Petters sprinted out from St. Cloud and a small stereo store, that his reach would exceed his grasp, that he over-promised and underperformed, that he loved his life and his family and his employees and the memory of his murdered son, that he gave millions away, that he acted as a mentor, bought businesses and was visible in the community are all true,” Engh said, in papers quoting Albert Camus , F. Scott Fitzgerald , Walt Whitman and Joan Didion . Engh said Petters has a tumor on his pituitary gland and described him as a “marked man in prison” based on the notoriety of his case. Engh also cited the non-violent nature of the crimes, Petters’s philanthropy and the demands by his hedge- fund victims for unreasonable rates of return. “The victims’ conduct contributed to the loss,” Engh said. “By requiring inordinate returns, the hedge funds and their investors assured themselves a failed business model.” Petters is scheduled to be sentenced April 8. Madoff, 71, pleaded guilty last year to running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. He is serving his 150-year sentence in a federal prison in North Carolina. The case is U.S. v. Thomas Joseph Petters, 08-00364, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (St. Paul). To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in St. Paul, Minnesota, at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Hedge Funds Lure More Cash From Pensions Seeking to Fix Benefit Shortfall

February 24, 2010

By Saijel Kishan and Katherine Burton Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) — Florida’s state pension system , manager of $112 billion for a million firefighters, teachers and garbage collectors, is set to decide next week on the size of its first investment in hedge funds. Executives of the fourth-largest state retirement program in the U.S., who have considered putting money into the private pools of capital since 2007, will make the move amid a 7 percent shortfall in its ability to pay future benefits, the first in 13 years. Wisconsin’s pension also plans its initial allocation this year, while Boeing Co. ’s probably will raise its holdings. Public and private pensions are increasing hedge-fund commitments after slowing the flow of cash at the end of 2008. About 15 percent of U.S. institutions plan to boost their allocations, and 80 percent will keep them steady, according to a survey by SEI Investments Co. The investors are seeking to accelerate returns after losses during the financial crisis. “In 2008, everyone stopped allocating,” said David McMillan , director of hedge funds at Hammond Associates Inc. , a St. Louis, Missouri-based consultant that advises pension funds with $23 billion in assets. “I expect to see the pace of investing pick up.” Pension managers with hedge-fund holdings oversee about $3.2 trillion, according to Casey, Quirk & Associates LLC , a consulting firm based in Darien, Connecticut. While no estimates are available for how much money these funds might allocate in 2010, a 1 percent increase would translate to about $32 billion in inflows for the $1.6 trillion industry. Below Targets Corporate pensions are about half a percentage point below their average hedge-fund target of 10.2 percent of assets, while public systems are 1.4 percentage points below their 7.8 percent goal, according to SEI , an Oaks, Pennsylvania-based investment manager and consultant. Both groups raised their targets in 2009, setting the stage for new investments this year. U.S. states face a gap of more than $1 trillion between what they have saved and what they have promised to retired workers in pension and health-care benefits, according to a report released this month by the Pew Center on the States, a Washington-based research and advocacy group. The 100 largest corporate pension funds had a $324 billion shortfall as of January, according to a statement by Seattle-based consultant Milliman Inc. Equities Not Enough “Pension funds want to reduce the volatility of returns, and they don’t think equities will get them to their return targets,” said John Haugh , head of U.S. pensions and endowments research at Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research in New York. U.S. stocks, as measured by the Russell 3000 Index , are about 20 percent below their level in 2000. With interest rates just above record lows, returns on government bonds, a staple of pension-fund holdings, have declined. Public pensions rose an average of 3.7 percent annually in the past 10 years, while corporate plans gained 3.6 percent, Haugh said. Both have a target of 8 percent. Haugh said pensions also will invest in commodities, real estate, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and natural resources such as timberland to counter their expectations of rising inflation. Hedge funds gained an average of 6.6 percent a year in the past decade through Jan. 31, according to the Credit Suisse Tremont Index. That compares with an average annual loss of about 1 percent by the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and a 6.6 percent return by U.S. bonds, based on the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Index. Redemptions End Investors pulled $298 billion out of hedge funds from Oct. 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc. A net $15 billion flowed back in during the second half of last year, data from the Chicago-based research firm show. Funds attracted $140 million in inflows in January, Eurekahedge Pte, a Singapore-based research firm, said yesterday. “The majority of dollars coming into hedge funds in the next 12 months will primarily come from pension plans,” said David Harmston , head of the client group at London-based Albourne Partners Ltd., which advises 36 pension plans with $40 billion invested in the funds. The biggest funds, with extensive infrastructure and risk- management systems, are benefiting the most. Steven Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors LP pulled in $1.3 billion between June and December, and Tudor Investment Corp.’s BVI Global Fund Ltd. raised the same amount between March and July before closing to new cash. SAC is based in Stamford, Connecticut, while Tudor is run by Paul Tudor Jones in Greenwich, Connecticut. Florida, Wisconsin Pension funds and endowments invested $7.67 billion in hedge funds last year, a decline of 47 percent from 2007, according to Eager, Davis & Holmes LLC, a consultant based in Louisville, Kentucky, that tracks money-management hiring. In Florida, the retirement system designated $1.75 billion during the year ending in June for assets that include timberland and infrastructure, Dennis MacKee , a spokesman for the State Board of Administration in Tallahassee, said in a telephone interview. Its investment advisory council will discuss how much of that money to steer into hedge funds when it meets March 3. Wisconsin Retirement System , which oversees $72 billion and was 88 percent funded at the end of 2009, is planning to invest in hedge funds for the first time this year, according to Vicky Hearing , a spokeswoman for the Madison, Wisconsin-based plan. “We are looking to diversify to reduce volatility in our overall portfolio,” she said in a telephone interview. The pension fund plans to initially invest in 15 managers and increase that number to 25, according to a December report. More Direct Investments In 2009, about 80 percent of the money invested in hedge funds went through middlemen known as funds of funds, according to Eager Davis. Some pensions are looking to deal directly with fund managers. Boeing, the second-largest U.S. defense contractor, expects to add about $400 million this year to the $1.3 billion it has with hedge funds, according to Todd Blecher , a spokesman for the Chicago-based company. Hedge-fund holdings of the plan, which oversees $46 billion, are done through middlemen, though the company may begin making direct investments, he said. Universities Superannuation Scheme , which oversees 30 billion pounds ($46 billion) for U.K. university employees, is one of the pension managers that first invested directly when it started allocating to hedge funds last year. “We want to have control, transparency and responsibility over picking managers,” Mike Powell , who oversees the organization’s alternative assets out of London, said in a telephone interview. “While fund of funds may add value on a gross basis, the fee drag means that the net returns are not enough to justify the risk.” Adding Fund Managers The pension plan has about 300 million pounds in hedge funds and expects to increase that to 1.5 billion pounds by investing on average as much as 75 million pounds in one manager a month, Powell said. Hedge-fund managers bet on falling and rising assets prices and take a cut of profits. They charge investors fees of about 2 percent of assets and 20 percent of investment gains. Funds of funds charge 1 percent of assets and 10 percent of profits on top of those fees. In the Netherlands, PGGM , a nonprofit that manages funds for Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn, plans to move away from funds of funds and invest the 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) it has in directly, according to an e-mail from Diana Abrahams, a spokeswoman. Zeist, Netherlands-based PGGM manages 87 billion euros. Skeptics Remain As of September 2009, public funds had about 52 percent in stocks, 29.5 percent in bonds, 16.8 percent in alternatives and 1.5 percent in cash, according to Bank of America Merrill. Corporate funds had 45.1 percent in stocks, 36.9 percent in bonds, 15.9 percent in alternatives and 2.1 percent in cash. Most pension managers include hedge funds in the alternative category. Not all retirement plans are convinced that the funds are for them. “We’re a conservative investor and hedge funds are too risky and flashy for our portfolio,” Ricardo Duran , a spokesman for the $134 billion California State Teachers’ Retirement System in West Sacramento, California, said in a telephone interview. Calsters is the second-largest state retirement program after the $200 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Seeking Comfort Level Among the reasons why pension funds are hesitant to put money with hedge funds is that they lack an understanding of what they are invested in, said Daniel Celeghin , a partner at Casey Quirk. “Some of the investment strategies that hedge-fund managers use are so esoteric that board members are saying, ‘I don’t understand this 100 percent, so let’s go slowly,’ ” he said. Among those still reviewing the level of hedge-fund holdings is the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio , which invests about 3.3 percent of the $9 billion it manages in the private partnerships. “Hedge funds are new to us and so we’re still trying to get comfortable with them,” said Tim Babour , a spokesman for the Columbus-based plan, which made its first investment in hedge funds in 2008. To contact the reporters on this story: Saijel Kishan in New York at skishan@bloomberg.net ; Katherine Burton in New York at kburton@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Wells Fargo Vying for Top Tier in Equities Where JPMorgan, Goldman Reign

February 24, 2010

By Dakin Campbell and David Henry Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) — Wells Fargo & Co. , whose previous leader once said investment banking was “incompatible” with its consumer culture, is seeking a bigger share of the U.S. equity underwriting business dominated by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The expansion could propel Wells Fargo into the top tier of equity underwriters, according to Rob Engel and Jonathan Weiss , co-heads of investment banking at San Francisco-based Wells Fargo. The addition of Wachovia Corp.’s securities unit helped Wells Fargo rank 10th in 2009 U.S. equity offerings, its best showing ever, and eighth so far this year. “The opportunities are immense,” Weiss said in a Feb. 10 interview from New York. “We have all the talent and capabilities, and certainly the client base, to be a Top Five equity house.” Former Chairman Richard Kovacevich , 66, said in 2005 that investment banking was “incompatible” with the culture of a lender that gets 70 percent of its profit from consumers and small businesses. That was before he led the 2008 purchase of Wachovia along with its securities units, and then turned the firm over to Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf , 56. Last year’s efforts were concentrated in two industries, with more than half the $4.33 billion the lender helped raise tied to real estate investment trusts, and limited partnerships for oil and gas and pipelines, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Wells Fargo helped raise about $741.6 million in 15 deals this year, the data show. Still on Top That’s not enough to displace JPMorgan , ranked No. 1 last year with $33.7 billion in U.S. equity underwriting. The firm is leading in 2010 by managing at least 22 equity sales that collected $3.1 billion. Goldman was second last year with $31.5 billion; this year, the firm helped raise at least $840 million across 10 deals, slipping to sixth place, Bloomberg data show. Wells Fargo made about $213 million in disclosed underwriting fees from equity and equity-related deals since the beginning of 2009, according to Bloomberg data. By contrast, JPMorgan earned $1.38 billion and Goldman Sachs $1.14 billion. JPMorgan spokeswoman Tasha Pelio and Goldman Sachs spokeswoman Andrea Rachman declined to comment. Both firms are based in New York. Obstacles “Breaking into the top tier of investment banking has never been easy,” said Bruce Foerster , president of South Beach Capital Markets in Miami and former executive at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Costs are high for recruiting bankers away from rival firms, he said. As for the brokerage staff, ranked third with almost 15,000 advisers, brokers throughout the industry are showing more independence and may be less willing to sell equity deals managed by the parent company, he said. The bank is looking to provide customers with more services and isn’t looking to build market share just for the sake of it, Weiss said. Companies that have loans with the bank, or use treasury management services or corporate checking accounts may turn to Wells Fargo for investment banking business, Engel said. Engel, 46, joined Wachovia in 2005 from Gleacher Partners LLC, a New York advisory firm, and Weiss, 52, came to the company the same year after working for JPMorgan. Wells Fargo doesn’t disclose investment banking revenues or earnings, spokeswoman Elise Wilkinson said in a Feb. 22 e-mail. The unit is part of the wholesale banking group, which earned $3.9 billion last year, almost triple 2008’s total. Management The burden of boosting the business will rest in part on Andy Sanford , 49, a former JPMorgan and Citigroup Inc. executive who joined Wachovia before its collapse and now runs the combined equity capital markets business. In November, Sanford hired Michael Tiedemann , 46, from JPMorgan as a managing director to expand the unit, Wilkinson said. In theory, Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Chris Kotowski said, Wells Fargo could build its equity underwriting business by taking advantage of its corporate relationships. In reality, he said, that’s unlikely. “The real synergies between investment banking and commercial banking generally are fairly modest,” said Kotowski, who rates the stock “outperform.” In its biggest initial public offering of the last 13 months, a $350 million offering on Dec. 8 for Pebblebrook Hotel Trust , Wells Fargo shared the leadership with Bank of America Corp. and Raymond James Financial Inc. Of the three, Wells Fargo took on the fewest shares, 2.63 million, according to the offering statements from the deal. “I don’t see Wells becoming a Top Five equity underwriter,” said Todd Hagerman , an analyst in New York with Collins Stewart Plc who rates the stock “hold.” “It’s not in their DNA.” To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net ; David Henry in New York at dhenry19@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Liz Ryan: Oh, You Mean That Job Market?

February 23, 2010

Job-searching in the U.S. is like queuing in the U.K. Have you ever seen the lines next to the bus stops in London? In the U.K., people line up. It’s like breathing for them. No jostling, no line-cutting. That’s their thing. They’re very good liner-uppers. Here in the U.S., we apply for jobs the same way. Show us two velvet ropes, we’re gonna stand between ‘em. There’s nothing quite like job-hunting to remind us of how rule-abiding we are. Fill out this online application. Take this personality test. Answer this twenty-minute questionnaire. My husband says to me “There’s something about forms — online or on paper. You get a form, you start filling it out, suddenly you’re six years old and every authority figure from your whole lifetime is standing over your shoulder, checking for accuracy.” He’s right. We are trained to follow the rules, and when it comes time to job-hunt, we fall right in line. When I write about a rule-breaking job-seeker who got a job (and most of the folks I know who are getting good jobs right now, are breaking rules right and left) some people get discouraged. They even get mad. I always get comments that say “You’re wrong, that’s B.S., you can’t get a job that way.” It makes some people angry to hear that other people are getting great jobs by not following the rules. But think about it: whose rules are these? They’re not laws. They’re bureaucratic HR policies. You don’t work for these companies (yet). Why should you follow their rules? Every resume must go into the Black Hole. No phone calls. No end-running HR, do not contact the hiring manager, do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred dollars. Yeah, well, who says? I wrote a story a while back (How That Guy Doug Got the Job) and I got mail in my inbox saying “It wasn’t fair how that guy got the job.” It was fair! The guy showed up with a desire to find out what the employer really needed. He asked good questions. He got to the heart of the matter and made himself and his background relevant to the CEO. How is that not fair? He didn’t bribe anybody. He didn’t call on his old friend Vincent “The Chin” Gigante to make someone an offer he couldn’t refuse. Job specs are full of filler and garbage, and Black Holes don’t work. I can understand why people are reluctant to ignore the formal hiring system — they fear they might be blackballed — but that fear is keeping them on unemployment (with or without benefits) for months longer than they need to be. Real employers have real business pain. “I have twenty years of progressively more responsible experience in yada yada” doesn’t make anyone’s heart beat faster. “Say, I was calling to see whether the XYZ acquisition you finalized last month is putting you in need of contract attorneys” might. It’s not as scary as you think, to pick up the phone or launch an email message or LinkedIn overture to ask “Am I right in thinking that you’re dealing with A, B and C?” To the manager in pain, your call or email message is manna from heaven. There is another job market. It’s not the be-a-good-boy-or-girl job market of Black Hole resumes lobbed over the transom and ignored forever. That job market is broken. Forget about it. It doesn’t work, and you won’t get a job that way. I know what you’re thinking. SOMEONE might get a job that way. Someone will also win the lottery. Would you bank your future on the lottery? The why-not, I’m-calling-this-guy, I’m-sending-another-Pain-letter job market is alive and well. My client Betsy got an $80K job this week, and another client, Clara, got a $55K job offer last Sunday. (She got a job offer on a Sunday! Someone was in pain.) These folks got their jobs because they took the employer’s perspective and constructed an outreach of some type (phone, email, snail mail, LinkedIn, personal introduction) that spoke to the manager’s most likely pain. “I wasn’t sure, so I figured I’d ask” is the theme in this approach. Nothing about their long years of experience. Nothing about their own assessments of their skills (“I’m strategic, I’m savvy, blah blah blah.”) A guy called me on the phone, and he said “I see you do tele-seminars. Would you be interested in a quote on fast, high-quality transcription?” I said “Why not?” What risk did the transcription guy take? Only the risk that I’d say “No, not really,” and that’s no risk at all. Job-seekers in the Other Job Market are doing the same thing. They’re not putting their faith in Black Holes and HR pipelines and Hurry Up and Wait and Maybe We’ll Get Back to You, One Day and Oh Wait, We Also Need Your College Transcripts and a Writing Sample. They’re doing what the transcription guy did. They’re saying to themselves This Guy Might Need My Help, and I’ll Never Know Until I Ask Him. Life is too short to spend your time beating your head against the wall and kowtowing to bureaucracies, right? You’re not the groveling type, anyway.

Read the full article →

Brett King: Banks: KYC is Killing Your Customers

February 21, 2010

In my discussions with bankers about innovation, I often hear them tell me that perhaps in other industries innovation could be achieved, but due to heavy regulation and the compliance requirements of the banking sector that such is more difficult for financial institutions. This is part of the story, but I’m sure that it is fixable. I met with a Private Banker from one of the dominant bank brands in Asia this week. In Central Hong Kong this bank has it’s own tower, of which three floors are dedicated to the Private Banking unit, but that’s only half true. Almost half of that office space is taken up by a team that is designed to reduce risk to the bank by ensuring that customers are accurately informed of the risks their investments will carry, and to ensure that the bank does not commit itself or their client to undue risks. The name of this team within the Private Bank – the Business Prevention unit – I jest ye not. Has it come to this that regulation and risk aversion is such an important part of the bank that we now actively try to prevent business occurring? It would appear so. This explains a great deal about the current state of our banking sector. If customers are a risky proposition, then how does the bank make money? Well they invest it in stuff where they know they have an element of control, or in the case of sub-prime they try to actively engineer it so that they make profit regardless of the underlying asset risk. Some banks have even been known to borrow money from the government and margin trade on it in recent times… The point of this is that banks have become so myopic in respect to customer risk that as customer we’ve almost become an anathema. In fact, the compliance workload we as customers have to deal with these days is so offensive, that it is almost not worth engaging a bank for an investment deal or asking for a loan. To illustrate, in the mid 80′s I recall being a student and walking in to open an account with no identification, I filled out two cards with a specimen signature, my address and particulars, and that was it. Now that same bank requires a 100-point identification scorecard to be realized, and the basic current account application form is some 18 pages long. This is progress apparently. Internal bank compliance procedures are bad for business… Now, I appreciate we have Anti-Money Laundering, we have identity theft, we have IRS and tax departments eager to know what we’re doing with our money, and we have regulators that are making it their job to ensure we don’t invest in a financial product that we don’t fully understand. Sometimes, just sometimes, however, we just want a decent banking experience. We just want it to work, and the more paperwork you throw at us, the more hoops you make us jump through – the worse our banking experience is. The thing with this is, that although there are regulations and legal constraints, most of the work we have to do is due to internal bank policy and process. For example, let’s say an existing customer comes to the bank to ask for a loan – this is a customer we’ve known for 5 years, his salary gets paid every month on time, and he’s a low credit risk based on what we already know. Why then is it that this same customer has to fill out an application form with the same details he’s provided us with since day one? There is absolutely no regulatory or legal requirement for the process to be handled in this way. Right now this is all about making it easier for the bank to mitigate risk for their brand. A customer-focused bank would either allow the customer to sign on with their Internet Banking credentials to agree to the loan, perhaps sign on a tablet or digital form or if absolutely necessary generate a paper application form based on existing customer records where all he had to do was sign. All of these solutions would produce exactly the same result from a regulator’s or compliance perspective as a hefty paper KYC process. So why as banks don’t we do this way? Firstly, no one senior enough in the bank has sponsored such a move. Secondly, because the internal IT department would probably take 15,000 man days, and $184.63 m to enable this. And lastly, because at the end of the day as bank executives we get rewarded for mitigating bank risk, not for making customer experience better. Regulators and bankers need to separate ‘customer’ risk from operational risk, and in this way innovation can still occur.

Read the full article →

Sprague, Top Multi-Industry Analyst, Leaves Citigroup to Start Own Firm

February 16, 2010

By Rachel Layne Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) — Jeffrey Sprague , the top-ranked multi-industry analyst each year of the past decade in the annual Institutional Investor poll, said he left Citigroup Inc. last week to form a boutique equity research firm. “It just felt to me that it was time for Wall Street to go back to its partnership roots, to create a new culture of small firms with partners that have skin in the game,” Sprague, 48, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “They’ve got a singular focus –their clients.” Nicole Parent , a former Credit Suisse Group AG analyst, will team with Sprague as a founding partner of Vertical Research Partners LLC in Stamford, Connecticut. The firm will start by covering 16 companies, including General Electric Co. and 3M Co. Parent, 38, will run day-to-day operations, and Sprague will oversee research, he said. The pair are forming their own firm after a financial crisis that led to the collapse of investment banks such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Sprague told clients he was leaving in an e-mail last week. Parent, who covered many of the same companies, said she left Credit Suisse in April 2009. “When you think about the larger firms, they are far more bureaucratic today, and they’ve lost sight of the fact that what’s important is the client,” said Parent, who won’t have any research duties. “We like to think of this as our own industrial revolution.” Expansion Plans Sprague declined to name backers of the firm and said it was fully funded and will be running “shortly” with full coverage in six to eight weeks. Vertical Research will expand to cover more than 20 companies in capital goods and later add teams in industries such as aerospace, materials and machinery. The firm also may offer capital-structure and options research, depending on feedback from clients, he said. Sprague, a 22-year Wall Street veteran, hired his three- person research team from Citigroup, where he was an analyst for about 12 years. He previously worked at Cowen & Co. and Paine Webber Group Inc. Sprague said he didn’t use his name in the new firm’s title because he wants to build a team of partners. Parent, who holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from Harvard, started her career working for the New York Stock Exchange’s chief economist and calls Sprague her mentor. She worked for his research team from 1996 to 2000 before leaving for Bank of America. Sprague served four years in the U.S. Army in the second armored division as well as an additional four years in the Ohio National Guard. He is a graduate of the University of Akron. To contact the reporter on this story: Rachel Layne in Boston at rlayne@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Nina Wang Fortune Claimant Arrested After Will Ruled Fraudulent, AFP Says

February 3, 2010

By Marco Lui and Debra Mao Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Tony Chan , the Hong Kong feng shui practitioner who tried to claim the fortune of late billionaire Nina Wang , was arrested yesterday, a day after a court ruled a will produced by him wasn’t signed by Wang, Agence France-Presse reported. A man aged 50 surnamed Chan remained in custody after his arrest yesterday for the alleged forgery of a document, Hong Kong police spokeswoman Odelia Tam said today, declining to identify the man as Tony Chan. Documents were confiscated and no charges have been laid against the man, she said. High Court Judge Johnson Lam ruled that Wang’s estate belongs to the charitable foundation created by the late owner of the Chinachem property group after a legal battle that gripped the city with accounts of kidnap, sex and feng shui rituals. Lam wrote in his judgment that a 2006 will produced by Chan following Wang’s April 2007 death was forged. Police earlier searched Chan’s house on the Peak, Hong Kong’s most exclusive residential area, according to Radio Television Hong Kong reports. Chan “lied and withheld relevant information from this court,” Lam wrote in his 326-page judgment, following a 40-day probate hearing that began in May last year. Wang was awarded her husband’s estate in 2005 at the city’s highest court after a legal dispute in which two lower court judgments sided with her father-in-law’s claim to the money. Teddy Wang , Nina’s husband, was kidnapped in 1983 and again seven years later. He wasn’t returned after the second abduction, even after his wife paid part of the ransom. ‘Little Sweetie’ When Nina Wang, dubbed “Little Sweetie” by Hong Kong media, died of cancer in 2007 at the age of 69, Chan claimed her fortune, citing a 2006 will. That sparked a legal fight with Wang’s siblings, who helm her charitable foundation and said they had a 2002 will that made it the legitimate heir. In June, Chan told the court Nina called him husband and he was seeing her while his wife was pregnant with their first son. He said digging holes at Chinachem sites and burning real money were among the happy memories he and Nina Wang enjoyed as a “married couple.” “We won’t say anything at the moment on Mr. Chan’s case,” Kenis Liu, a PR manager at Master Gain Consultants Ltd., a firm hired by Chan, said by phone today. She declined to reveal Chan’s whereabouts. “The will was handed over to me by Nina’s own hands,” Chan told reporters on Feb. 2 in comments that were broadcast on local television in Hong Kong. “The truth will come to light, because I am innocent.” Chan’s lawyer, Jonathan Midgley , said on Feb. 2 his client planned to appeal the court decision. Midgley wasn’t immediately available for comment today, Candy Law, secretary to the lawyer, said by phone today. A final decision on the case may ultimately be made in the city’s highest court, the Court of Final Appeal, which could take 12 to 18 months, Fai Hung Cheung, a Hong Kong-based lawyer at Allen & Overy, said earlier this week. To contact the reporter on this story: Marco Lui in Hong Kong at mlui7@bloomberg.net ; Debra Mao in Hong Kong at dmao5@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

UBS-IRS Deal: Court Ruling Forces Swiss To Rethink Deal To Reveal Names

January 27, 2010

GENEVA — The Swiss government said Wednesday it may have to renegotiate a carefully wrought deal with the United States to hand over thousands of files on suspected tax cheats in return for an end to U.S. legal proceedings against Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS AG. Bowing to a court decision that declared parts of the deal illegal, officials will now seek a way to salvage the agreement reached with Washington in August without breaking Swiss law, Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said. “The discussions that we will lead may result in formal or material changes to the treaty,” she told a news conference after a Cabinet meeting in the capital, Bern. The Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. agency that has taken the lead on this issue, said it expects the Swiss government “to continue to honor the terms of the agreement.” Until the legal impasse has been resolved, Switzerland will stop transferring any more files on UBS customers alleged to have hidden money in offshore accounts with the bank’s help, Widmer-Schlumpf said, adding that only six such files have been transferred to the U.S., each time with the client’s written consent. A further 1,168 files are close to completion. UBS said in a statement that it fully supports the government’s decision to seek talks with U.S. authorities. “As before, we will fulfill all our commitments under the agreement,” it said. The latest episode in the UBS saga is an embarrassment for Switzerland, which is trying to shed its image as a haven for tax cheats, and a headache for the bank, whose reputation has been tarnished by revelations about its cross-border dealings with rich American clients. Shares in UBS closed 2.4 percent lower at 14.15 Swiss francs ($13.50) on Wednesday. Widmer-Schlumpf said the outcome of the talks, which could require parliament to approve changes to Swiss law, will affect not just the future of UBS but “also the stability of the financial center and the economic situation of Switzerland.” U.S. authorities last year agreed to drop their demand for details of 50,000 American UBS clients, if the Swiss divulged the names of 4,450 U.S. customers believed to have been involved in large-scale tax evasion or fraud. In a separate deal, UBS paid a $780 million penalty as part of a deferred prosecution agreement that included disclosure of an additional 150 names. Widmer-Schlumpf said the government would do what it could to prevent Switzerland or UBS from being punished for not meeting its side of the bargain. But she explicitly ruled out an emergency decree to force through a change in Swiss law. In its Friday ruling, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court found that UBS clients’ failure to fill out a required tax form – even if this concerned large sums of money and occurred repeatedly – couldn’t be interpreted as fraud or fraud-like activity. This is required for Switzerland to break its strict banking secrecy rules and hand over files to foreign governments. Experts say the current treaty includes a clause that may allow the Swiss government to avoid having to change the law or renegotiate its treaty with Washington, if 10,000 UBS customers voluntarily give themselves up under a U.S. tax amnesty program.

Read the full article →

Inktel Direct Appoints Summer Dennis as Vice President of Client Services

January 25, 2010

MIAMI, FL–(Marketwire – January 25, 2010) – Summer Dennis has been named Vice President of Client Services of Inktel Direct Corp., a business process outsourcer specializing in marketing and governmental services. As Vice President of Client Services, Dennis, a seasoned client service, finance and operations director, will spearhead the operations and management of all client services functions for Inktel Direct including hiring, training, process automation and client management best practices.

Read the full article →

Kraft Deal Cements Wasserstein Legacy, Fees for Lazard

January 19, 2010

By Brett Foley, Jacqueline Simmons and Zachary R. Mider Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Kraft Foods Inc. ’s takeover of Cadbury Plc seals the legacy of Bruce Wasserstein , the Lazard Ltd. dealmaker who died a month after Kraft Chief Executive Officer Irene Rosenfeld made her first bid in September. Kraft, the world’s second-largest food company, made its bid with help from a team of advisers led by Wasserstein, a pioneer of modern M&A and Lazard’s chief executive officer. Cadbury accepted a higher 11.9 billion-pound ($19.7 billion) bid from Kraft earlier today. “This deal will be a monument to Bruce,” said Philip Keevil, a former Lazard banker who is now a senior partner at Compass Advisers LLP. “Bruce has always taken a view of, let’s get the client signed, make the bid and get him up to price.” Lazard and Kraft’s advisers Deutsche Bank AG, Citigroup Inc. and Centerview Partners LLP, may get paid as much as $58 million in fees, according to estimates from Freeman & Co., a New York-based research firm. Cadbury may pay Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and UBS AG as much as $56 million, Freeman said. The figures exclude fees for helping to finance the deal. Mergers and acquisitions dropped about 37 percent last year to $1.75 trillion, cutting fees to investment banks. Kraft’s offer is the largest unsolicited takeover since Roche Holding AG’s $44 billion bid for Genentech Inc., completed in March 2009. It would rank among the largest 10 in the past year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Trident, Tang “This is a windfall for Kraft’s bankers, given the financing and associated fees,” Keevil said. “Cadbury’s advisers would have been paid well for a job well done” even excluding the financing element, said Keevil, who worked on a number of transactions with Wasserstein, starting with Canada- based Seagram Co.’s hostile offer for St. Joe Minerals Corp., a mining company, in 1979. The takeover would create a company with about $50 billion in annual sales, adding Cadbury’s Trident gum and Creme Eggs to Kraft’s Oreo cookies, Toblerone chocolate and Tang drinks. Cadbury investors would get 840 pence a share, including 500 pence in cash and the rest in stock, Northfield, Illinois- based Kraft said in a statement today. Cadbury would also pay its shareholders an additional 10-pence dividend once the offer becomes unconditional. The revised bid is about 9 percent higher than Kraft’s initial bid of 769 pence a share. Kraft’s Rosenfeld increased the offer after Cadbury said the original bid was “derisory.” Kraft said on Sept. 7 it would pursue a hostile takeover of Cadbury after the maker of Dairy Milk chocolate spurned its approach. Goldman Sachs, UBS Wasserstein personally led the team advising Rosenfeld. Joining him were Robert Pruzan , a longtime colleague of Wasserstein’s, who is now with Centerview; Leon Kalvaria at Citigroup; and Nigel Meek and James Agnew at Deutsche Bank. Wasserstein died Oct. 14 at the age of 61 after being hospitalized for an irregular heartbeat, and his team at Lazard — including Antonio Weiss , Peter Kiernan, Jeffrey Rosen and William Rucker — stayed on the deal. Cadbury turned to Goldman Sachs’s Karen Cook , Morgan Stanley’s Simon Robey and UBS’s Nick Reid . “The bread and butter for banks going forward will be the advisory and financing of strategic transactions,” said former Citigroup Inc. managing director Peter Hahn , who now lectures on corporate finance at London’s Cass Business School. The Kraft- Cadbury deal involves new money “where the banks can make fees from issuing shares, debt and potentially” asset sales. Hershey, Ferrero Kraft’s banks helped arrange as much as 5.5 billion pounds of a 364-day bridge loan to help fund its bid, according to a Nov. 9 regulatory filing. The 5.5 billion-pound bridge loan will cost Kraft at least 96.25 million pounds a year in fees if the amount is fully drawn, according to a Dec. 4 regulatory filing. The loan may be refinanced with new debt, a sale of shares or with convertible bonds, according to the filing. Kraft also included a provision in the bridge loan agreement to incur as much as $3 billion of additional debt that can be used for the acquisition, according to the December filing. Kraft’s lenders included Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Credit Suisse Group AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Societe Generale SA and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA. Hershey Co. of the U.S. is unlikely to try to top Kraft’s offer, three people familiar with the matter said. The company and the charitable trust that controls it have been getting advice from Bank of America Corp., Byron Trott’s BDT Capital Partners, FBR Capital Markets Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Perella Weinberg Partners LP. Ferrero SpA, the Italian maker of Tic Tacs and Nutella spread, decided not to take part in a bid for Cadbury, Il Sole 24 Ore reported. The Italian chocolate maker was advised by Mediobanca SpA and Rothschild. To contact the reporters on this story: Brett Foley in London at bfoley8@bloomberg.net ; Jacqueline Simmons in Paris at jackiem@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

New York Man Said to Face Terrorism Charge in Alleged Sept. 11 Bomb Plot

January 8, 2010

By Patricia Hurtado and Justin Blum Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — A New York man arrested in connection with an alleged bomb plot targeting New York faces federal charges after telling authorities he trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan, two people familiar with the investigation said. Adis Medunjanin, 25, who was arrested with a second suspect today, likely will be charged with conspiracy and with receiving training from a foreign terrorist organization, one of the people said. Medunjanin and Zarein Ahmedzay were arrested early today, said FBI spokesman James Margolin in a phone interview. Ahmedzay, appeared today in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, and pleaded not guilty to one count of making false statements to FBI agents. The two were charged in connection with an investigation of Najibullah Zazi , an Afghan man who authorities said trained at an al-Qaeda terrorist camp and conspired to detonate an improvised explosive device in New York, according to Margolin. Zazi and two other men were arrested in September over an alleged plot to detonate a bomb around the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Medunjanin told authorities he trained in an al-Qaeda camp in Pakistan with Zazi, another law enforcement official said. Medunjanin and Ahmedzay attended Flushing High School with Zazi in Queens, New York, the person said. Robert Gottlieb, a lawyer for Medunjanin, said in an interview at the federal courthouse in Brooklyn that Medunjanin contacted him yesterday to say the FBI was at his apartment asking for his passport. Expected Arraignment Gottlieb, who said he was retained as defense counsel by Medunjanin in September, said he came to court today expecting his client to be arraigned. He said he was told by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Knox that Medunjanin no longer wanted him as his lawyer. “They knew I represented him,” said Gottlieb, who said prosecutors wouldn’t let him talk to Medunjanin. “They have flagrantly decided that it’s OK to violate the Constitution and deny him access to his lawyer.” Gottlieb said he would return to court tomorrow for what he expected to be Medunjanin’s arraignment. Ahmedzay was arraigned today before U.S. Magistrate James Orenstein and was charged with making a false statement in an investigation of “international and domestic terrorism.” Ahmedzay, on Sept. 17 and Sept. 18, “falsely stated to special agents of the FBI that he had disclosed to them all of the locations he visited during his trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan, which trip occurred on or about and between Aug. 28, 2008, and Jan. 22, 2009,” the U.S. said. Ahmedzay also allegedly falsely stated that he hadn’t had discussions with a person identified as “John Doe” in court papers “about attending a camp to receive military-type training while in Pakistan,” the U.S. alleged. ‘John Doe’ Prosecutors said Ahmedzay falsely told the FBI that he didn’t “know that John Doe attended a camp to receive military- type training while in Pakistan” when he “did know that John Doe attended a camp.” “I am going to deal with the indictment as I see it,” Ahmedzay’s lawyer, Michael Marinaccio, told reporters after today’s arraignment. “I don’t know who John Doe is,” he said. “This is very early in the case,” he said. “Whether or not the allegations are borne out remains to be seen.” Orenstein set a hearing for Jan. 12 to consider whether Ahmedzay can be released on bail. The men were arrested shortly after midnight by members of the FBI’s and New York Police Department’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, said Margolin of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Search Warrant New York Police detectives and FBI agents went to Medunjanin’s residence in the Flushing section of Queens yesterday afternoon to execute a search warrant for his passport, said a law enforcement official who requested anonymity. Medunjanin surrendered his passport without incident, the person said. After the search, Medunjanin left the apartment and got into his car and drove away, with detectives conducting surveillance from a distance and not in pursuit, the person said. While driving on the Whitestone Expressway near the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, Medunjanin sped up and his vehicle collided with the car traveling ahead of him at about 4 p.m., the person said. Medunjanin then fled on foot and was taken into custody by New York City police officers and FBI agents after a brief chase, the person said. Medunjanin suffered minor neck injuries in the crash, and was taken to a hospital, where he was treated and released into the custody of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the person said. Ahmedzay was taken into custody by police detectives and FBI agents at about 10 p.m. yesterday while driving a cab in Manhattan, Marinaccio said. Van Driver The two men came to the attention of authorities in September during the investigation of Zazi, Margolin said. Zazi, a former Denver airport shuttle-van driver who had moved to Colorado from Queens, drove to New York in early September, prosecutors said in a federal indictment. The U.S. alleges in Zazi’s indictment that he traveled last year to Pakistan, attended an al-Qaeda training camp, and returned to the U.S. with bomb-making instructions. Prosecutors said Zazi returned from Pakistan on Jan. 15, staying in Flushing in Queens. He then moved to Colorado within days. Zazi and three unidentified associates bought components for improvised explosive devices from July to September, the U.S. said in a conspiracy indictment unsealed Sept. 24. When officials searched a residence in Flushing where Zazi stayed, they found an electronic scale that could be used to weigh chemicals and batteries that could be installed in a bomb, according to the indictment. Car Stopped Members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force stopped Zazi in a rental car on Sept. 11 in Queens. They searched Zazi’s vehicle and found a laptop computer. The computer had an image of nine pages of handwritten notes, including a recipe for an explosive used in the 2005 London train bombings and intended for use in the 2001 plot involving “shoe bomber” Richard Reid to blow up an airplane, prosecutors said. Zazi was videotaped on store cameras in Colorado buying products such as acetone and hydrogen peroxide that can be use to make a bomb, officials said. Zazi Arrest FBI agents interviewed Zazi on Sept. 16 in Denver and showed him the handwritten notes, at which point he falsely said he hadn’t written them and had never seen them, according to an affidavit related to Zazi’s arrest. Zazi later admitted to authorities that, during a trip to Pakistan last year, he received training in the use of weapons and explosives at an al-Qaeda facility, according to a Justice Department statement. Zazi has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is awaiting trial. He faces as long as life in prison if convicted. No trial date has been set. His father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, and another man, Ahmad Wais Afzali, were also arrested and were charged with lying to investigators. Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges and are free on bond pending trial. To contact the reporters on this story: Patricia Hurtado in New York at pathurtado@bloomberg.net ; Justin Blum in Washington at Jblum4@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Bear Stearns Disappears Two Years After Collapse With JPMorgan Name Change

January 8, 2010

By Elizabeth Hester Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — The Bear Stearns Cos. name may live on through memorabilia sold on EBay . Starting next month, it won’t be on a business card. The Bear Stearns Private Client Services division, the last to use the name of the failed firm, is changing to JPMorgan Securities, spokesman Darin Oduyoye said. The rebranding was announced to brokers today on a conference call. Clients will see the new logo on their February statements. JPMorgan, which acquired the unit in its March 2008 purchase of Bear Stearns, branded it “Bear Stearns: a JPMorgan Company.” With the decision to drop that name, Bear Stearns joins firms including Salomon Brothers, Dillon Read and Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette among brands that have disappeared from Wall Street in the past two decades. “Even though the name goes away on the business cards and e-mails, there will always be a fondness,” said Barry Sommers , the head of the division who joined from Bear Stearns. “We’re still proud of the name and feel fortunate to be a part of JPMorgan.” The move comes after the unit had one of its best years in terms of hiring, client revenue and products offered, Sommers, 40, said in a telephone interview. Being able to leverage the JPMorgan name will help the business going forward, he said. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon , the 53-year-old son and grandson of stockbrokers, said Oct. 27 that his New York- based bank planned to have as many as 1,000 of the “top, top, top” brokers. Hiring Brokers JPMorgan hired 70 brokers in 2009, bringing the total to 386 who manage more than $60 billion in client assets, Oduyoye said. The commission-based pay structure will remain unchanged. The unit had 324 brokers at the end of 2008, company documents show. One of the new hires was Dimon’s father, Theodore “Ted” Dimon, who joined the firm in November from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. The elder Dimon spent more than three decades as a broker for companies once run by Sanford “Sandy” Weill before moving to Merrill Lynch in August 2006, according to a report from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The Bear Stearns brokers made $307 million in revenue for the year through Sept. 30, a company report shows. Sommers will continue to run the division, which will remain separate from JPMorgan’s private wealth management group, whose customers have $1 million to $25 million, and the private bank, whose clients are typically worth more than $25 million. Samuel Molinaro , former chief financial officer of Bear Stearns, is helping a former client Braver Stern Securities Corp. negotiate the purchase of New York-based broker-dealer Pali Capital Inc., three people familiar with the talks said yesterday. Molinaro will oversee about 250 people at the combined firm as chief executive officer. To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Hester in New York at ehester@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Don McNay: Advice for the Unknown Lottery Winner

December 28, 2009

And as he started to go, She said Billy keep your head low Billy, don’t be hero, come back to me. -Bo Donaldson and The Heywoods. Someone won a $128 Powerball jackpot near my home in Central Kentucky. At the time I am writing this, the winner has not come forward. I’ve done a number of television and radio interviews since the news broke.. I give the same advice that I gave in my book, Son of Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What To Do When You Win the Lottery. After having overcome trillion-to-one odds, the idea of running through the money would seem silly to most winners. However, studies shows that 90% of people blow all their money within five years of winning the jackpot. I have counseled lottery winners. Here are a few tips I have given them: Never let anyone know you won. Every lottery winner who goes public eventually tells stories about people harassing them. Power Ball winner Jack Whittaker said, “There should be a book to tell you how to handle it when people get thrown into the limelight.” You are asking for trouble if you have a news conference and tell the world that you have a bunch of money that you never planned on having. The news conference turns out really well for the lottery officials promoting their product, and it provides a good story for the media. It will not, however, turn out so well for you. Bowling Green, Kentucky attorney Steve Thornton announced that a few years ago that one of his clients had won the Kentucky lottery. Steve set up a corporation and protected the client’s identity. A winner who bought a $162 million ticket in Amelia, Ohio set up a trust through a bank trust department. They also took the payments over 30 years. No one knows who they are or how to contact them. If you win the lottery, find an attorney who can do the same thing for you. Your life will be much happier. If you decide later on that you want to be famous, you will have enough money to fund your own reality show. Take the annual payments, not the lump sum. Never take a lump sum. The annual payments are a better deal. Lottery winners are totally unprepared for sudden wealth. If you take the money as a lump sum, and become overcome by lust, drugs, sex, bad friends, bad family, bad investments or other factors, then the money will be gone, and there will be no way to get it back. If you take annual payments and run through the first check, you have 29 more chances to get it right. It gives you time to organize a plan and take advantage of ways to save taxes and improve return. Spend money on some good advice. There are a ton of tax breaks for the wealthy. When you win the lottery, you need to find people who can get those tax breaks for you. Asking for good advice does not mean calling the bookkeeper for your bowling league. You need someone who has dealt with big money and is not trying to learn while they earn. Big-time advisers don’t advertise in the phone book under “Help for Lottery Winners,” but if you ask some well-respected attorneys, you will eventually get referred to the advisor you need. There are people who are good at helping rich people become richer. Get one of them working for you. Use your money for a purpose. There was a great book written in the 1980′s by Ami Domini called The Challenges of Wealth. It was a groundbreaking study of sudden wealth written during a time when few studies were available on the subject. Her research showed that rich people are happiest when they help a cause that they really believe in. The most joyful people were those who gave money for scholarships, helped their church and formed non-profit groups. You can leave your children enough money to be comfortable without spoiling them. People who leave their families too much money wind up with children like Paris Hilton. If you study history, you will find that most of the people who amassed great fortunes, like Carnegie and Rockefeller, gave substantial amounts of money to charity while they were still alive. Even more gave money to charity upon death. You have an opportunity to take care of family and have plenty left over to make an impact on society. It will make you content and make the world a better place Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC is one of the world’s leading authorities in helping people deal with “Big Money” issues. McNay is an award winning, syndicated financial columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and financial consulting firm, in 1983 and Kentucky Guardianship Administrators LLC in 2000. You can read more about both at www.mcnay.com McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni. McNay has written two books. Most recent is Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win The Lottery McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

Auction-Rate Investors Get Second Chance After Loss of First Fraud Suits

December 17, 2009

By Thom Weidlich Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Auction-rate securities investors who sued banks including Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG to recoup billions of dollars in losses went 0 for 5 as their first cases were thrown out. Now some are gearing up for a rematch over part of the $149 billion in securities that remain outstanding. In three of the class actions, judges allowed the investors to refile their complaints after finding the initial suits failed to prove they lost money or satisfy a 1995 federal securities-fraud law designed to discourage frivolous stock-loss suits. Citigroup, UBS and Raymond James Financial Inc. have again asked that the cases be tossed out. “The private litigation has run into a brick wall,” said James Cox, a law professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The legal bar for bringing such lawsuits has been too high for auction-rate investors to surmount, he said. Those investors may need a change in federal law if the 1995 act proves too big an obstacle for genuine claims, said Elizabeth Warren , who chairs the congressional oversight panel monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program. She suggested the idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The rules in place for liability and the right to bring a lawsuit under these circumstances are determined by a combination of case law and legislation,” Warren said. “If we don’t like where the balance point is, we at least have the legal capacity to change that.” Investors sued at least 19 broker-dealers after the $330 billion auction-rate market froze in February 2008 as credit tightened and banks stopped participating in auctions that set interest rates for the investments. The banks touted the securities as being as safe as cash, plaintiff investors said. Loan-Backed Bonds The instruments are usually municipal and student-loan- backed bonds and preferred shares whose interest is reset every seven to 35 days at bidding managed by dealers. When such auctions began failing, customers were unable to sell their securities at face value and get access to their money. As private litigation moved forward, financial firms agreed to buy back $61 billion in auction-rate securities — or 18.5 percent of the original market — to end regulators’ probes of their treatment of customers. The buybacks undercut some damages claims, leading to dismissals. Strapped for cash, some investors resorted to distressed sales, losing as much as 40 percent of their investment. SecondMarket Inc., the New York-based company that operates a marketplace for illiquid assets, estimates there are now $149 billion in outstanding auction-rate securities. Sufficiency of Complaint In deciding requests to dismiss a lawsuit, judges rule on the sufficiency of the complaint to allow the case to go forward, rather than on the merits of the accusations. The judges who ruled on the motions to dismiss in the auction-rate cases decided against the investors because they didn’t lose money or didn’t satisfy the tough legal standards for bringing securities-fraud suits, according to their rulings. Those standards include backing up allegations of wrongdoing with what the statute calls particular detail. This means investors must show, to the satisfaction of a judge, that the company probably knew it was doing something wrong. If they don’t, they can’t proceed toward trial. The investors in the class actions have tried to increase their chances of winning by filing new complaints with more details. Those include evidence from the banks’ agreements with regulators over auction-rate securities, such as e-mails from bank executives and accusations of wrongdoing by government agencies. Added Material In their new complaint filed Oct. 15, investors suing New York-based Citigroup added material from the bank’s December 2008 regulatory settlement — in which it agreed to buy back or help clients unload as much as $19.5 billion in auction-rate securities — to show it knew the market was in peril while keeping that fact from customers. “I believe that we should allow market dynamics to determine the pricing and success/failure of these auctions,” a Citigroup official e-mailed colleagues on Feb. 9, 2008, according to a complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “If we do so, I’d expect them to fail.” Citigroup on Nov. 3 again asked U.S. District Judge Laura T. Swain in New York to drop the suit. Michael Passidomo, the lead plaintiff, “has done little more than add quotations from regulatory complaints,” the bank said in court papers. In originally dismissing the Citigroup litigation Sept. 11, Swain found the complaint wasn’t specific enough in alleging market manipulation and didn’t allege facts giving rise to an unlawful intent by the bank. Dismissed a Case On Sept. 17, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York dismissed a case against St. Petersburg, Florida-based Raymond James Financial, the biggest U.S. regional brokerage. The Raymond James plaintiffs filed a new complaint Oct. 16. The company on Nov. 16 again asked the judge to toss the suit. The complaint includes 20 pages with more detail on how the company marketed and sold auction-rate securities. The section on municipal securities, for example, includes information from an unidentified former financial adviser at the company who said Raymond James downplayed the likelihood of auction failures to its employees. In its Nov. 16 motion to dismiss, Raymond James said investor claims “again fail to meet the rigorous standards” imposed by court rules and the 1995 securities reform law. Previously Compensated U.S. District Judge Lawrence M. McKenna in New York on March 30 dismissed four consolidated suits against Zurich-based UBS, finding the buyers of auction-rate securities had been compensated through the bank’s agreement with regulators to redeem $19.4 billion of the instruments. The UBS litigation has been taken over by investors not covered by the regulatory settlement. Of the five motions to dismiss that have been decided so far, Chicago-based Northern Trust Corp. and Atlanta-based SunTrust Banks Inc. won permanent dismissals. At least eight actions against brokers including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , which in August 2008 agreed to buy back $1.5 billion of auction rate securities, were voluntarily dismissed. “Within weeks of when we filed our case they paid our client back,” said Lionel Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP in Los Angeles, who sued New York-based Goldman Sachs. Some investors chose to arbitrate claims against the banks, achieving mixed results. — With assistance from David Scheer in New York and Michael Quint in Albany, New York. Editors: Charles Carter , John Pickering To contact the reporter on this story: Thom Weidlich in New York at tweidlich@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Auction-Rate Investors Get Second Chance After Loss of First Fraud Suits

December 17, 2009

By Thom Weidlich Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Auction-rate securities investors who sued banks including Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG to recoup billions of dollars in losses went 0 for 5 as their first cases were thrown out. Now some are gearing up for a rematch over part of the $149 billion in securities that remain outstanding. In three of the class actions, judges allowed the investors to refile their complaints after finding the initial suits failed to prove they lost money or satisfy a 1995 federal securities-fraud law designed to discourage frivolous stock-loss suits. Citigroup, UBS and Raymond James Financial Inc. have again asked that the cases be tossed out. “The private litigation has run into a brick wall,” said James Cox, a law professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The legal bar for bringing such lawsuits has been too high for auction-rate investors to surmount, he said. Those investors may need a change in federal law if the 1995 act proves too big an obstacle for genuine claims, said Elizabeth Warren , who chairs the congressional oversight panel monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program. She suggested the idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The rules in place for liability and the right to bring a lawsuit under these circumstances are determined by a combination of case law and legislation,” Warren said. “If we don’t like where the balance point is, we at least have the legal capacity to change that.” Investors sued at least 19 broker-dealers after the $330 billion auction-rate market froze in February 2008 as credit tightened and banks stopped participating in auctions that set interest rates for the investments. The banks touted the securities as being as safe as cash, plaintiff investors said. Loan-Backed Bonds The instruments are usually municipal and student-loan- backed bonds and preferred shares whose interest is reset every seven to 35 days at bidding managed by dealers. When such auctions began failing, customers were unable to sell their securities at face value and get access to their money. As private litigation moved forward, financial firms agreed to buy back $61 billion in auction-rate securities — or 18.5 percent of the original market — to end regulators’ probes of their treatment of customers. The buybacks undercut some damages claims, leading to dismissals. Strapped for cash, some investors resorted to distressed sales, losing as much as 40 percent of their investment. SecondMarket Inc., the New York-based company that operates a marketplace for illiquid assets, estimates there are now $149 billion in outstanding auction-rate securities. Sufficiency of Complaint In deciding requests to dismiss a lawsuit, judges rule on the sufficiency of the complaint to allow the case to go forward, rather than on the merits of the accusations. The judges who ruled on the motions to dismiss in the auction-rate cases decided against the investors because they didn’t lose money or didn’t satisfy the tough legal standards for bringing securities-fraud suits, according to their rulings. Those standards include backing up allegations of wrongdoing with what the statute calls particular detail. This means investors must show, to the satisfaction of a judge, that the company probably knew it was doing something wrong. If they don’t, they can’t proceed toward trial. The investors in the class actions have tried to increase their chances of winning by filing new complaints with more details. Those include evidence from the banks’ agreements with regulators over auction-rate securities, such as e-mails from bank executives and accusations of wrongdoing by government agencies. Added Material In their new complaint filed Oct. 15, investors suing New York-based Citigroup added material from the bank’s December 2008 regulatory settlement — in which it agreed to buy back or help clients unload as much as $19.5 billion in auction-rate securities — to show it knew the market was in peril while keeping that fact from customers. “I believe that we should allow market dynamics to determine the pricing and success/failure of these auctions,” a Citigroup official e-mailed colleagues on Feb. 9, 2008, according to a complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “If we do so, I’d expect them to fail.” Citigroup on Nov. 3 again asked U.S. District Judge Laura T. Swain in New York to drop the suit. Michael Passidomo, the lead plaintiff, “has done little more than add quotations from regulatory complaints,” the bank said in court papers. In originally dismissing the Citigroup litigation Sept. 11, Swain found the complaint wasn’t specific enough in alleging market manipulation and didn’t allege facts giving rise to an unlawful intent by the bank. Dismissed a Case On Sept. 17, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York dismissed a case against St. Petersburg, Florida-based Raymond James Financial, the biggest U.S. regional brokerage. The Raymond James plaintiffs filed a new complaint Oct. 16. The company on Nov. 16 again asked the judge to toss the suit. The complaint includes 20 pages with more detail on how the company marketed and sold auction-rate securities. The section on municipal securities, for example, includes information from an unidentified former financial adviser at the company who said Raymond James downplayed the likelihood of auction failures to its employees. In its Nov. 16 motion to dismiss, Raymond James said investor claims “again fail to meet the rigorous standards” imposed by court rules and the 1995 securities reform law. Previously Compensated U.S. District Judge Lawrence M. McKenna in New York on March 30 dismissed four consolidated suits against Zurich-based UBS, finding the buyers of auction-rate securities had been compensated through the bank’s agreement with regulators to redeem $19.4 billion of the instruments. The UBS litigation has been taken over by investors not covered by the regulatory settlement. Of the five motions to dismiss that have been decided so far, Chicago-based Northern Trust Corp. and Atlanta-based SunTrust Banks Inc. won permanent dismissals. At least eight actions against brokers including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , which in August 2008 agreed to buy back $1.5 billion of auction rate securities, were voluntarily dismissed. “Within weeks of when we filed our case they paid our client back,” said Lionel Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP in Los Angeles, who sued New York-based Goldman Sachs. Some investors chose to arbitrate claims against the banks, achieving mixed results. — With assistance from David Scheer in New York and Michael Quint in Albany, New York. Editors: Charles Carter , John Pickering To contact the reporter on this story: Thom Weidlich in New York at tweidlich@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Larry Flynt Wins Partial Victory Against Nephews In Court Battle Over New Porn Company

December 11, 2009

LOS ANGELES — The porn family feud that played out in federal court this week ended in a draw Friday when a jury ruled that Larry Flynt’s estranged nephews infringed on their famous uncle’s trademark when they launched their own smut business, but did not invade his privacy and were not liable for the substantial attorney fees both sides rang up. The jury of four men and four women rendered its verdict after a four-day trial, during which they sat next to a big-screen TV that was used to repeatedly display blown-up photos of porn DVD boxes featuring naked women on the front and people engaged in all sorts of contortions on the back. They listened as Flynt, who was paralyzed when he was shot by a white-supremacist sniper in 1978, sat in his gold-plated, velvet-lined wheelchair on Tuesday and Wednesday and testified that in the porn business his name stands for quality. His nephews, he said, were besmirching it by putting that name on “trashy” adult movies. “The junk they publish hurts my reputation, which in turn hurts my revenue,” the gruff, gravelly voiced porn king testified. As both sides debated what constitutes an elegant sex film as opposed to a trashy one, jurors sat stone-faced, observing posters for films with titles like “Hot Showers” and “Sex at Your Service.” After about three hours of deliberations Friday, they concluded that Flynt’s nephews, Jimmy Flynt Jr. and his brother, Dustin Flynt, did indeed infringe on their uncle’s trademark when they produced films with just the word “FLYNT” in large capital letters above the titles. At the same time, the jury rejected Flynt’s contention that his nephews invaded his privacy, a ruling their attorney, Dan DeCarlo, said holds Flynt responsible for all attorney fees. Overall, both sides claimed victory. Flynt’s attorney, Mark Hoffman, said all his client wanted was to maintain his good name in the porn community, adding that he never asked the jury for monetary damages. “This has been very hard on Mr. Flynt,” he said. “He never wanted to go this far. All he wanted to do was the right thing.” Meanwhile, Jimmy Flynt Jr. said he has already launched a new Web site that he believes meets the requirements of the jury’s ruling. Called flyntnation.com, it contains both his and his brother’s first names, as well as the disclaimer, “Larry Flynt is not affiliated with and does not endorse this.” “No one wins in this thing,” said Jimmy Jr., who bears a striking resemblance to his square-jawed uncle. “It’s sad that the family is in this dispute, but we felt strongly that we should be allowed to use our name in our business.” The nephews launched their own company after their uncle fired them from executive positions at Larry Flynt Publications in November 2007. Jimmy Jr., 37, had worked there for 17 years, starting in the mailroom. His 34-year-old brother had been there 10 years. “I felt they were doing a horrible job,” their 67-year-old uncle testified. Larry Flynt, who started in the porn business more than 40 years ago, owns Hustler magazine and other publications, operates Internet sites and retail stores, produces films, owns pricey real estate and even markets a line of clothing. Although his privately held company is said to be worth tens of millions of dollars, he fired his nephews’ father, Jimmy Flynt Sr., last year, saying he needed to save money to sue Jimmy Sr.’s sons. “I told him that this lawsuit was going to be expensive to finance it, and the only way I could was to not have him working for the company,” Flynt testified during the trial.

Read the full article →

New Jersey Loses $22,000 a Day With Interest Rate Swap for Debt Never Sold

December 4, 2009

By Dunstan McNichol Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) — New Jersey taxpayers are being saddled with a bill of about $657,000 a month from Bank of Montreal for an interest-rate swap approved by state officials and linked to bonds that were never sold. The 11th-largest U.S. state by population, which is cutting expenses to close a $1 billion budget deficit, will pay Canada’s oldest lender $23.5 million. The sum, about the same as the salaries for 113 teachers over three years, will allow it to avoid a $50 million penalty for canceling the contract, which was tied to planned sales of school-construction bonds. The interest rate swap, an agreement between borrowers to exchange fixed and variable-rate payments on a set amount of debt, was arranged in 2004 to protect taxpayers against rising borrowing costs . The strategy backfired after officials decided against issuing the securities. “This is a classic case of a strategic error,” said Robert Brooks , a finance professor at the University of Alabama- Tuscaloosa and author of a book on derivatives. “It’s arrogant to believe that you have such a command of the future that you know with certainty what is going to happen.” The payments, which work out to $21,892 a day for three years, show how elected and appointed officials failed taxpayers by agreeing to financial strategies they didn’t fully understand. New Jersey spent $21.3 million in 2008 to exit three contracts signed when James Florio and James McGreevey were governors. The state’s transportation trust fund is giving almost $1 million a month to a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partnership in an agreement linked to bonds that were redeemed. Penalties and Losses New Jersey isn’t alone. Borrowers from Massachusetts to California are struggling with billions of dollars in swap penalties and losses at the same time that budget deficits expand to an estimated $350 billion in 2010 and 2011, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The derivatives, mostly interest-rate swaps used to exchange fixed payments for variable rates, have grown to as much as $300 billion annually, the Alexandria, Virginia-based Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board said in an April report, citing information from market participants. Derivatives have created “unprecedented financial stress” for some of the 500 municipal issuers that sold variable-rate debt and purchased swaps from banks to lock in borrowing costs, according to an October report by Moody’s Investors Service. The biggest users of the arrangements are Pennsylvania , California , Texas and Tennessee . The U.S. Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether Wall Street banks conspired with brokers to rig bids on the contracts. Forward-Starting Agreement Jefferson County, Alabama, is on the edge of bankruptcy mostly because of a $3 billion sewer project in which fixed-rate bonds were refinanced into floating-rate securities hedged with interest-rate swaps. Larry Langford , the former Democratic mayor of Birmingham, was convicted of federal corruption charges Oct. 29 for accepting bribes in exchange for giving underwriting contracts to a banker friend while he was county commission president. New Jersey’s 2004 school-bond swap with Bank of Montreal was linked to a $250 million bond originally scheduled to be sold in 2007. The so-called forward-starting agreement was one of 15 such contracts the state set up to help finance construction. The issue was deferred to 2009 because the school program wasn’t borrowing fast enough to use swaps coming due in 2007, according to treasury spokesman Tom Bell. Fixed Rate Under its contract, New Jersey agreed to pay the bank a fixed rate of about 4.6 percent, or $967,000 a month, on the $250 million principal. In return, it would receive unspecified variable-rate payments based on a percentage of the one-month London interbank offered rate, according to Treasury Department spokesman Tom Vincz . The one-month rate was 0.23 percent on Dec. 3, down from 1.9 percent when the Bank of Montreal swap was set up, according to the British Bankers Association One-Month Libor U.S. Dollar Index . Libor is a benchmark for the cost of loans between banks. In pushing the swap off to 2009, New Jersey agreed to a 9 basis-point reduction in its fixed interest rate and the bank changed the floating-rate formula to a lower percentage of Libor. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. When the revamped agreement took effect on Nov. 1, the state faced payments of $833,000 a month, Vincz said in an e- mail. Treasury officials allowed the bank to suspend floating- rate payments while lowering New Jersey’s fixed-rate cost to 3.1 percent, or $656,770 monthly, through November 2012. Typical School The cost would cover the $23.6 million price of a typical elementary school , according to New Jersey Schools Development Authority reports. It would also pay 113 teachers’ salaries for three years, based on data reported by the state Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund. “It is obscene,” New Jersey Governor-elect Christopher Christie said at a Nov. 16 news conference in Trenton, referring to financial strategies such as swaps pursued largely during McGreevey’s term from 2001 to 2004. “It is extraordinary to me that someone could do that much damage in less than three years.” McGreevey, who resigned in 2004 after saying he was gay, didn’t respond to phone messages left at his home and the office of his partner, Mark O’Donnell, at real-estate developer Kushner Cos. in New York City. The former governor also didn’t return a message left at the Episcopal All Saints Parish in Hoboken, New Jersey, where he serves as an assistant while seeking a Master of Divinity degree at Manhattan’s General Theological Seminary. $3.4 Billion John McCormac , Christie’s transition team economic development and growth adviser who served as state treasurer when most of New Jersey’s swaps were arranged, hung up when asked about them on Nov. 11. “OK, thanks for calling,” McCormac, mayor of Woodbridge Township , said before disconnecting. New Jersey refinanced $3.4 billion of debt tied to derivatives last year, according to a report from the state Treasury Department’s Office of Public Finance . The renegotiated swap lets New Jersey avoid a termination fee, estimated at $50 million in an Oct. 31 state report. It will allow the original swap to be reinstated if officials want to sell school-construction bonds in 2012, Vincz said in the Nov. 16 e-mail. Diligent Work “We are working diligently to manage and reduce the cost of the swap portfolio this administration inherited,” he said. “This temporary solution limits swap costs for a three-year period, after which time the state will retain the option of applying the original terms with a future borrowing as a hedge against rising interest rates.” “We are not in a position to comment, out of an obligation of confidentiality to the client,” Kim Hanson , a spokeswoman for Bank of Montreal , said in a phone interview. Peter Nissen , a financial adviser in Marlboro, New Jersey, who worked on the swap while at Public Financial Management, the state’s Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based adviser, declined to comment. Marty Margolis , managing director at PFM, said in a phone interview that Nissen worked independently on the contract and hasn’t been associated with the company for more than two years. “That swap was done by someone who hasn’t worked for the company for several years,” Margolis said. “I know nothing about it.” Except for two deals to stem losses from existing derivative contracts, New Jersey has entered into no new swaps since Governor Jon Corzine , the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, took office in 2006, according to Vincz. Christie, a former U.S. prosecutor, defeated Corzine last month and is to be sworn in Jan. 19. UBS Contract New Jersey paid $21.3 million last year to end three derivative contracts connected to bonds for business-incentive grants, the River Line Light Rail project from Trenton to Camden and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. On Nov. 18, the Delaware River Port Authority, a bistate agency that runs toll bridges and a rail line to Pennsylvania, agreed to give Zurich-based UBS AG $111 million if the authority can’t issue variable-rate debt to make use of an existing swap by February. The state Transportation Trust Fund Authority is paying almost $1 million monthly to Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivative Products L.P., a partnership of the New York-based bank and Japan’s Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group Holdings Inc. , under a swap agreement made during McGreevey’s administration in 2003. The derivatives were linked to $345 million in auction- rate bonds sold to finance road and rail projects. Fixed-Rate Debt While New Jersey replaced the debt with fixed-rate securities in 2008, the derivative payments aren’t scheduled to expire until 2019. The state plans to sell $150 million in variable-rate bonds on Dec. 7 to make use of part of the swap. The state treasury “should continue to aggressively manage the termination, conversion and management of swaps that this administration inherited, while dealing with the realities of the most difficult credit conditions in history,” Corzine’s former spokesman, Steve Sigmund , said in an e-mail on Oct. 22. New Jersey passed up borrowing costs of 4.6 percent to 4.9 percent when it opted to issue variable-rate bonds tied to swaps during McGreevey’s tenure, a 2008 state analysis shows. The net interest cost on the debt was about 4 percent while the original derivative agreements were in effect, according to the report. Revenue Bonds The yield on 25-year fixed-rate revenue bonds is now 4.98 percent, up from a yearly low of 4.69 percent in early October, according to a Bond Buyer Index . Derivatives can save taxpayers money over longer periods if they’re managed properly, said Peter Shapiro , managing director of Swap Financial Group LLC, in South Orange, New Jersey, an adviser to companies and governments. “Will municipal officers ever take for granted that floating-rate bonds will be dull, boring and predictable means of finance?” he said in a phone interview. “No, and they probably never should have.” To contact the reporter on this story: Dunstan McNichol in Trenton at dmcnichol@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Wealthy Families Pay Too Much for Art, Yacht, Ransom Coverage, Aon Says

December 3, 2009

By Carolyn Bandel and Warren Giles Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) — Wealthy families pay too much to insure yachts, paintings and the risk of being taken hostage because they aren’t using their purchasing power to negotiate better deals, according to Aon Corp. and Marsh & McLennan Cos . Families with more than 50 million Swiss francs ($49.5 million) can cut their premiums by as much as 30 percent by pooling policies covering everything from medical care to classic-car collections, said Romain Vanolli, head of Aon in the French-speaking region of Switzerland. “Instead of buying little bits of insurance all over the place, they can just buy in one lot and make sure they negotiate better rates,” Vanolli said in an interview at his Geneva office. “It leads to savings.” Brokers are offering the service as insurers boost sales to rich people whose assets are rising after the global financial crisis. Aon opened an office in Geneva last July to serve an estimated 540 family offices that oversee more than 100 million francs each for wealthy clients. Zurich Financial Services AG , Switzerland’s biggest insurer, created a unit this year to target clients through private banks. Chicago-based Aon charges 3,000 francs to 5,000 francs to audit a family office’s insurance, including policies covering tangible assets such as property, aircraft, cars and fine art, Vanolli said. Aon also assesses lifestyle coverage such as accident and travel insurance and may cover special risks such as kidnapping. Not ‘Plain Vanilla’ Consolidating a rich person’s policies can cut their insurance costs, said Adrian Saunders, head of U.K. private client services at New York-based Marsh. The world’s second- largest insurance broker targets European clients with an average wealth of 4 million pounds ($6.55 million) through its London office. “The high-net space is attractive because it has some almost traditional values about underwriting and pricing business and providing cover and solutions that aren’t a plain vanilla, off-the-shelf solution,” Saunders said. Marsh declined to provide details on the size of its business. Oliver Scott, sales director at Willis Group Holdings Ltd.’s private clients unit, said grouping policies helps cut costs by simplifying the payment structure. “I suppose the real benefit is to a broker knowing what the annual charge or what the annual commission rate would be and instead of charging commission on all the policies potentially creating a fee,” he said in a telephone interview from London. Willis, the world’s third-biggest insurance broker, serves wealthy Europeans from its London office. Still Developing Insurers haven’t started offering a bundled product for rich people because the companies are “less geared towards the composite demand of the client” and instead sell off-the-shelf products, said Frank Nuy, head of private insurance at the Liechtenstein unit of Swiss insurer Baloise Holding AG. This area “is still developing,” he said. Zurich Financial created its unit for private bank clients earlier this year, and it had sales of $53 million in the nine months through September. Swiss Life Holding has offered life insurance to people with assets of more than 1 million francs for the past five years. The country’s largest life insurer said in August that global premiums for rich people increased 80 percent to 1.4 billion francs in the first half of this year. “It is the growth business for Swiss Life,” said spokeswoman Irene Fischbach . The product is “a wealth planning tool,” which can help with inheritance issues and is sold through private banks and asset managers, she said. To contact the reporters on this story: Warren Giles in Geneva at wgiles@bloomberg.net Carolyn Bandel in Zurich at cbandel@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Cash-Rich Japanese Companies May Buy More Overseas Assets With Strong Yen

December 1, 2009

By Takahiko Hyuga and Makiko Kitamura Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — The yen’s surge to a 14-year high may encourage Japanese manufacturers including auto-parts makers and pharmaceutical companies to accelerate acquisitions overseas, said bankers and analysts. Gains in the currency are also likely to increase mergers at home as Japanese exporters seek to cut costs to offset the rising price of their goods abroad, said Koji Hirai , chief executive officer of M&A advisory Kachitas Corp. Japanese companies have already taken advantage of the yen’s 30 percent gain against the dollar during the past two years to make more than 800 acquisitions overseas worth $90.8 billion, according to Bloomberg data. Accumulated profits of Japanese companies totaled $3.2 trillion at March 31, up 4 percent from a year earlier, according to a Ministry of Finance survey of 2.8 million firms. “M&A will happen — there is a need to switch to a more profitable business model taking advantage of the strong yen,” said Takeshi Miyao , a Tokyo-based supply-chain analyst for auto consultant Carnorama. “There is a very real possibility for acquisitions of European or U.S. companies that are in a weak position because of the financial crisis.” The MSCI World Index of 1,657 companies has slumped 29 percent in the past two years, helping cash-rich buyers in search of bargains. Kirin Holdings Co. led purchases of overseas assets by Japanese companies in 2009 after spending $4.6 billion to take full control of Sydney-based Lion Nathan Ltd. and acquire almost half of San Miguel Brewery Inc. in the Philippines. Takeda, Akebono Hirai, who said he is currently advising a Japanese auto- parts maker on an eastern European acquisition, cited pharmaceutical firms and car-parts firms as likely to make takeovers overseas. He declined to identify his client or specify individual companies. Osaka-based Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. may consider acquisitions in South America and is interested in expanding in generic drugs, President Yasuchika Hasegawa said yesterday. Takeda’s $8.9 billion cash purchase of Cambridge, Massachusetts- based Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. topped a record 441 overseas transactions by Japanese companies in 2008, according to Bloomberg data. Akebono Brake Industry Co., an affiliate of Toyota Motor Corp. , expects to close its planned purchase of Robert Bosch GmbH’s North American brake business by the end of this year. Bank of Japan “Japanese companies may also ride the strong yen to advance in Asia,” said Hirai, who says he has advised on 64 deals since 1991. “And it doesn’t just have to be acquisitions, they can hedge their risks through share purchases and joint ventures.” The yen today fell the most a month against the dollar after the Bank of Japan bank held an emergency policy meeting, spurring speculation it will seek to curb exchange-rate appreciation. The currency dropped 0.7 percent to 87.04 per dollar as of 3:40 p.m. in Tokyo, heading for its biggest slide since Oct. 29, after the Bank of Japan set up a new lending facility to support banks and the economy. The U.S. dollar averaged 103.37 yen during 2008 and this year dropped to an average 93.95 yen. The odds of the yen strengthening past 84.83 per dollar, the highest since July 1995, to 84.5 by the end of March rose to 80 percent, options data compiled by Bloomberg show. Exporter Threat The yen’s overall rise threatens profits at exporters from Sony Corp. to Toyota in a nation that depends on exports for about 12 percent of its economy, compared with 6 percent in the U.S. Lower earnings coupled with rising pension costs may mean companies won’t use their cash for mergers and acquisitions, said Yuuki Sakurai , chief executive officer of Fukoku Capital Management. “After Lehman collapsed, Japanese companies made sure to keep a lot of cash on hand for liquidity purposes,” said Sakurai, whose Tokyo-based firm manages the equivalent of about $9.3 billion. “Whether they will actually spend that cash is a different question.” The auto components industry needs to consolidate, Yann Delabriere , chief executive officer of French car-parts maker Faurecia SA, said in Tokyo on Nov. 25. The Japanese parts industry “is very strong and has the ability to internally manage consolidation,” he said. Carmakers including Toyota and Honda Motor Co. are shifting or are considering moving production of some models to the U.S. in response to the stronger yen, and the parts-makers will have to follow them, said Ashvin Chotai , managing director of Intelligence Automotive Asia. ‘Driving Force’ “They will either have to expand their own operations or make an acquisition,” Chotai said of the parts makers. He said investors should expect more consolidation and distressed assets in the parts sector. “The yen’s appreciation will be a driving force in Japanese companies making takeovers overseas,” said Taiji Okusu , a managing director of investment banking at Credit Suisse Group AG in Tokyo. The following data includes announced mergers and acquisitions in Japan as of Dec. 1. To contact the reporters on this story: Takahiko Hyuga in Tokyo at thyuga@bloomberg.net Makiko Kitamura in Tokyo at mkitamura1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →