education

Insider Trading Probe Has Boehner In Tough Spot

by New York Times on February 11, 2012

Huffington Post…

An ethics investigation of Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) has put Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a politically tricky spot. Years ago as minority leader, Boehner called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to relinquish his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship during a high-profile ethics investigation.

More:
Insider Trading Probe Has Boehner In Tough Spot

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

ATHENS, Greece — The leaders of the two parties backing Greece’s coalition government made dramatic appeals to their deputies Saturday to back legislation that calls for harsh new austerity measures – essential if Greece is to get a new bailout deal worth euro130 billion ($171.6 billion) and stave off bankruptcy. Prime Minister Lucas Papademos is expected to give a televised address later Saturday to defend the deal. Debate on emergency legislation approving the new bailout and a debt-swapping deal with private creditors began in committee Saturday afternoon. A plenary session will debate and vote on it Sunday. Further legislation detailing the measures demanded by, and agreed with, Greece’s public creditors, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, will be up for vote a few days later. The exact time has not yet been set. Both leaders – socialist George Papandreou and conservative Antonis Samaras – as well as Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, a socialist, used stark images of a country under bankruptcy to warn their respective parliamentary groups of the importance of their vote. “If we do not dare today, we will live a catastrophe,” Papandreou said. “What do you want, a country where food will be handed out with food stamps and where we will have no fuel?” Samaras angrily told a dissenting deputy. “The battle is now. The war is now. If we falter, nothing will be left standing…The real dilemma is between painful measures and crushingly painful ones,” Venizelos told socialist lawmakers. Deputies are wary of voting for the measures, which include wage and pension cuts and the prospect of more to come, along with the firing of several thousand civil servants and the shutdown of several state agencies, including welfare agencies. The demands of the EU and the IMF have caused one of the original coalition parties – the populist right-wing Popular Orthodox Party – to quit the government and withdraw its four members from the cabinet. Two more cabinet members – both socialist deputy ministers – have also quit, citing their disagreements with parts of the austerity package. Both Papandreou and Samaras made it clear that dissenters would have no place in the party. Samaras was more emphatic, threatening to expel those who did not vote in favor and exclude them from the lists of party candidates in the next election. “I want to make it absolutely clear … rebels or ‘bravehearts’ have no place in (the party’s) candidate lists,” he said. “I call on you to fall in line and vote for this difficult and painful deal that will help (the country) stand on its feet. Whoever has a conscience problem, can resign,” Papandreou told his lawmakers. Despite their leaders’ calls, at least four deputies from each party openly declared they would vote against, while two socialist deputies – both former ministers – hinted they might do so. None offered to resign. Together, the socialists and the conservatives have 236 deputies in the 300-member parliament. Samaras also called for an immediate election once the bond swap deal with Greece’s private creditors is over, saying he would not agree to the extension of the mandate of the coalition government beyond that date. Elections are normally due in October 2013. The bond swap deal with Greece’s private creditors is expected to help Greece get rid of some euro100 billion of its debt. The bond swap must be completed before March 20, the redemption date for euro14.5 billion worth of bonds. Elections could then be held about three weeks later than that, at the earliest. While the two parties met, union leaders staged a demonstration outside parliament that attracted about 4,000 protesters, according to the police – while 5-6,000 policemen patrolled the streets of Athens. The protest ended with some scuffles that left two people injured when police tried to clear the street in front of parliament. Authorities are bracing for a much larger, and possibly violent, one on Sunday evening. Another 4,000 turned out for a peaceful demonstration in Thessaloniki, Greece’s second city. ___ Costas Kantouris in Thessaloniki contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Greece Nears Bailout Deal To Stave Off Disaster

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Carla Holtze: 2012: A Shopper’s Odyssey

February 11, 2012

Yesterday I Tweeted, Facebooked and Tumbled a fabulous pair of pink skinny jeans from Zara that I discovered on Have to Have , a social registry for your life that I co-founded. Why did I do this? My style is one of the ways in which I express who I am. Apparently I wasn’t the only one who thought the pink jeans were the new it thing. Once I had seen that 14 other people added the pink jeans to their profiles, I knew I had to have them. Shoppers are social creatures and friends are some of our strongest influencers in purchasing decisions. 83 percent of online shoppers said they are interested in sharing information about their purchases with people they know, while 74 percent are influenced by the opinions of others in their decision to buy the product in the first place. However, social media is not just all about me. I love seeing what fashionable finds my friends are plucking from across the web and in stores as they snap photos on their phones. From Etsy to Shibuya to the tiny unknown boutique on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, cool finds are hitting our radar screens faster and powered by social media. Apps such as Instagram and Pose and inspiration platforms such as Pinterest are helping to make this sharing easier than ever before, both online and with mobile. Today shopping is all about social commerce and new tools that make browsing and buying a breeze – from wherever we are. A number of innovative companies are creating tools for people to not only discover fashion and show off their style, but also to help them shop the way they really do – both online and in stores. Mobile is an increasingly important piece of this puzzle bridging online and offline shopping. When it comes to clothing, shoppers often seek out products that they find online in real life so they can feel the fabric, try things on for size and fit or just want another opinion. They also want to buy the products they see in stores later online, oftentimes for the convenience factor. An overwhelming 78 percent of consumers use at least two such “channels” to browse, research and make purchases, and 56 percent of online shoppers who own a mobile device say they use that device to research or buy products. So what does all this mean in practice? For starters, I no longer have to read my mom’s mind when I want to buy her a birthday present. I know exactly what she wants when I check out her Have to Have profile and from there I can click to buy directly from the retailer. Likewise, I used to email myself reminders about products I had seen and liked, but now I use social bookmarking sites, like our own, to save products from across the web. The new Have to Have mobile app allows me to snap and save photos to my profile – from the fashion show runways in Lincoln Center to the Mall of America. I can also reference my wishlists, see what I have saved online and take care of all sorts of other online and offline shopping needs. I dig social commerce because it’s fun, efficient and keeps me on-trend. Aileen Lee, a partner at Kleiner Perkins said, “If you figure out how to harness the power of female customers, you can rock the world.”4 From two women who see a tremendous need from both the consumers and the brands, we are working on it!

Read the full article →

They Live In Motels And On Friends’ Couches, But Are These Kids Homeless?

February 11, 2012

Homeless kids have the right to an education. That’s the basic rationale behind the McKinney-Vento Act of 1987, a law meant to ensure that homeless kids receive the same quality of schooling as everyone else. But with more families losing their homes as a result of the lingering effects of the recession, many homeless advocates say the law doesn’t go far enough to help them. Yet attempts by these advocates to change things have led to a bitter debate within the field of homelessness advocacy itself. At the center of the debate is the question of who qualifies for government-subsidized housing. As it stands, anyone defined as homeless by the Department of Housing and Urban Development can apply for housing aid from the government. The problem is that HUD’s definition leaves out thousands who lack permanent homes — people who sleep on the couches of friends and relatives, or many who live in cramped motel rooms. Before approving aid in these cases, HUD requires proof that their arrangements are very tentative: either documentation of a lack of funds to afford a hotel room for more two weeks, or confirmation from the friend offering the couch that this setup can not be permanent. Providing such documentation is often a difficult hurdle for people living under these circumstances. Families with children make up a large part of this population. As the fastest growing segment of the homeless population, homeless families have been especially affected by the recent recession. Since the economic downturn, according the Department of Education, the number of homeless children has increased by 38 percent, to almost 1 million (many experts consider this a low estimate). But by HUD’s definition, only about 30 percent of such children, about 300,000, are considered homeless. In December, six children testified at a congressional hearing on H.R. 32 , a bill aimed at expanding HUD’s homeless definition and introduced by Republican Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) The children talked about the hardships of sleeping four or five to a room in cheap motels and bouncing from one relative’s living room to the next. They said that the resulting stress had caused them to struggle in school. Yet because they fail to meet HUD’s criteria for homelessness, they and thousands of others like them aren’t eligible for housing help. On Tuesday, the bill made it out of a markup session of Biggert’s Financial Services Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity. If the legislation is passed this year, HUD would count these kids as homeless. The responsibility of identifying homeless children would fall to organizations that already track them for the public schools; this would bring the homeless children count closer to the Department of Education’s estimate of 1 million. Supporters of the bill include the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. But not all advocates for the homeless are on board. The Corporation for Supportive Housing and the National Alliance to End Homelessness have opposed the bill, saying that it would expand the rolls of kids eligible for HUD aid without increasing the amount of funds. They worry that homeless people with the most pressing needs would suffer as a result. “Our understanding is that this would have a bad impact on the worse-off kids,” said Steve Berg, an executive for the National Alliance to End Homelessness, “kids who are living on the streets and in abandoned buildings and in backs of cars.” Homeless advocates should devote their energy to getting Congress to enlarge the budget of HUD and other agencies that help the homeless, Berg said. If Berg and his allies are now in the uncomfortable position of fighting a measure clearly intended to help homeless people, the same is true of several Democrats in the House. Representatives Maxine Waters, Mel Watt, and Luis Gutierrez — all established liberals — criticized the bill at the markup session. To make the bill more palatable, Waters offered an amendment that would provide more funding for homeless children. “Unless we add the Waters amendment with additional resources for those kids, someone who is currently getting services is going to end up on the street,” Gutierrez said. “This is not an easy issue, but the conversation we need to have isn’t about how to count homeless kids; it is about how we get resources to those kids.” Yet, many Republican who favor the measure, in part because they believe it could help streamline HUD’s bureaucracy, are unlikely to go for Waters’ proposal. Some ardent backers of the bill dismiss such Waters’ amendment as unrealistic. Even if Democrats regain control of the House, they say, politicians this year will never agree to spend more money on homeless people — unless they comprehend the full scope of the problem. And that won’t happen unless they get an accurate count of the country’s homeless families, they say. “Congress doesn’t really think it’s a problem,” said Diane Nilan, a prominent advocate for homeless families who attended the December hearing. “They don’t see the vulnerable families that are just hanging on.”

Read the full article →

WATCH: Tilted Kilt Employees File Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

February 10, 2012

Nineteen employees of the Celtic-themed “breastaurant” Tilted Kilt’s Chicago Loop location on Wednesday filed a lawsuit alleging that the eatery’s bar manager sexually harassed them. The lawsuit [ PDF ] contains disturbing details of incidents that allegedly occurred between the manager, the location’s owners and their scantily-clad staff at the restaurant, located at 17 N. Wabash Ave. According to CBS Chicago, Mark Roth, an attorney representing the women, accused the location’s former manager, whom he described as a “predator,” and the location’s owners of making numerous disturbing comments to his clients . “There were requests for sex,” Roth told CBS. “There were degrading comments that were made. Something that no woman should have to put up with anywhere, let alone by their manager in the workforce.” As the Chicago Tribune reports, the women in June filed a sexual harassment complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, upon which they received “right to sue” letters . The women, according to the Tribune , allege a “sexually hostile, offensive, humiliating and degrading work environment” where, among the 30 incidents outlined in the lawsuit, the location’s manager and owners made comments such as “Meow, meow, you’re a dirty kitty” and “You don’t know what I’d like to do to you” to the employees. Women who spoke out against these remarks alleging were giving less busy shifts. According to Fox Chicago, other incidents included grabbing employees’ breasts, putting licking employees’ ears and attempting to kiss the women . The manager and many of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit no longer works at that specific Tilted Kilt location, according to the Tribune. A company spokeswoman said in a statement that Tilted Kilt “does not tolerate sexual or other types of harassment either within its own organization or within its franchisees’ organizations” and pointed out that the company utilizes a franchise model where each location is independently owned and operated , NBC Chicago reports. The chain is no stranger to controversy in its Chicago-area operations. When the chain opened a Schaumburg location, it was met with complaints from several area residents, including one who argued that the restaurant attracted “men that come in there want more than just hot wings .”

Read the full article →

Hundreds Of Millions More Dollars Of MF Global’s Money Thought Missing

February 10, 2012

The trustee overseeing MF Global’s liquidation said Friday that the shortfall between the funds under his control and the amount customers of the failed brokerage are expected to claim is at least $1.6 billion. The gap estimated by the court-appointed trustee, James Giddens, compares with his previous estimate of $1.2 billion. Giddens said in a statement Friday that the new estimate is based on his investigation and it could change again. Giddens has been combing through the accounts of MF Global since it filed for bankruptcy protection on Oct. 31. The collapse of MF Global, which was headed by former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, was the eighth-largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history. Most of the $1.2 billion previously reported missing has been traced to customer accounts and banks. Regulators are investigating whether MF Global tapped money from clients’ accounts as its financial condition worsened. That would violate securities laws. Brokerages are required to keep customer money separate from the firm’s money. Unlike the previous figure, the new estimate of $1.6 billion includes about $700 million in customer money located in Britain. Giddens is in a legal dispute over that money with the administrator in Britain overseeing the liquidation of MF Global’s division in London. The new estimate excludes some customer claims that haven’t been filed yet. It also takes into account some funds that have been recovered since the earlier estimate was made in November. Giddens said about 40 percent of the claims filed by U.S. commodities customers of MF Global came from five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas. Around 91 percent of the claims are for less than $100,000, according to his statement. Much of the missing money belonged to farmers, ranchers and other business owners who used MF Global to reduce their risks from the fluctuating prices of commodities such as corn and wheat. Giddens has returned about $3.9 billion to customers.

Read the full article →

White House: Energy Department Loan Oversight Needs Overhaul

February 10, 2012

* Struggling to fill key positions to manage loans * Did not evaluate failed loan to Solyndra * Chu: will review ideas, but program is working By Roberta Rampton WASHINGTON, Feb 10 (Reuters) – The U.S. Energy Department relies on too many consultants and committees for managing its loans and needs to beef up its management, concluded a review commissioned by the White House in the wake of publicity over failed solar panel maker Solyndra. Herb Allison, a former investment banker known for his work helping government agencies manage large, complex financing programs, reviewed the energy loan program, and recommended an overhaul in oversight of the $23.769 billion portfolio. He said the Energy Department has struggled to fill vacancies in key positions without success. “At least one manager is acting head of several departments,” he said in a 75-page report. Decisions should be made by individual managers with expertise, Allison said, instead of using a committee process “where collective responsibility can obscure individual accountability.” Allison did not review a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy last year and has become a political sore spot leading into the 2012 election season. The loan was once held up by President Barack Obama as an example of how his administration was creating new jobs with “stimulus” funding while promoting renewable energy. It now is featured in at least two attack ads on television, and candidates for the Republican presidential nomination regularly invoke Solyndra as a symbol of what they say is government waste and misguided energy policy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he would review the recommendations to find ways to strengthen the program. But he said the program is working as it is intended, and noted that the review rated the overall risk of the loan portfolio as “slightly lower” than the department’s projections. “We have always known that there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won’t succeed, but the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time, and with about $8 billion in interest,” Chu said in a statement.

Read the full article →

Obama’s Approval Rating Keeps Inching Up, Driven By One Factor

February 10, 2012

WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the Gallup Daily tracking poll marked a symbolic milestone. For the first time in more than a month and only the third time since last July, Gallup reported an approval rating for President Barack Obama (49 percent) that was slightly higher than his disapproval rating (46 percent). On Friday, the Rasmussen Reports automated tracking survey marked a similar landmark. It showed Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent or greater nationwide for the fifth consecutive day, a popularity not matched on the Rasmussen poll since January 2011. The two daily tracking surveys are not alone. National telephone polls released in the past week by Fox News , ABC News and the Washington Post , Ipsos/Reuters , and the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy Polling (also sponsored by the website DailyKos and the Service Employees International Union) have all found increases in Obama’s approval rating since October. Most of the increases range between 4 and 6 percentage points; the Ipsos/Reuters survey found a smaller rise. The improvement since the fall has also been evident in state polls, including such likely battlegrounds in the general presidential election as Ohio , New Hampshire , North Carolina and Virginia . Given the recent upward blip in the two national daily-tracking polls, some have looked for explanations in the events of the past week , particularly last Friday’s Labor Department report of a rising employment rate . While positive economic news is the most likely reason for Obama’s improving job rating, the upward trend in his ratings did not begin in February. In fact, most of the surveys have tracked a gradual increase in Obama’s ratings that began in late October. The HuffPost Pollster chart , based on all available public polls, shows a slow, steady rise of roughly five percentage points in the president’s job approval rating since it hit its all-time low in early October. The longer-term increase in Obama’s approval rating parallels five months of increases in several survey-based indexes of consumer confidence. Specifically: Gallup reported that its index of consumer confidence has risen for five consecutive months to its highest point since May 2011. The pollster also reports that 22 percent of Americans now say they are satisfied with the way things are going, “higher than at any point since last spring.” The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index rose to its highest level in a year this week. The Thompson Reuters University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment was up in December for the fifth straight month. A preliminary estimate for January, based on a smaller sample, is slightly down , but confidence remained higher than in previous months. The Rasmussen Consumer Index stands at its highest level in over a year, although it’s down slightly from a peak earlier in the week. The Consumer Confidence Index of the Conference Board showed a slight decline in January, but its December and January measurements were still significantly higher than those of the three previous months . Of course, the overall economic mood remains gloomy. On the Gallup surveys , for example, far more Americans still say that economic conditions nationwide are getting worse (58 percent) than say they’re getting better (36 percent) — though the positive number has more than doubled, from 18 percent, since the fall. And despite big increases since October, the president continues to receive net negative ratings on “the economy” (44 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove) and “creating jobs” (44 percent approve, 51 percent disapprove) in the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post survey . The main point, however, is that the rising tide of consumer optimism directly parallels the upward trend in Obama’s overall job approval rating. That result underscores the promise and the peril for the Obama administration in 2012. Continuing economic recovery will likely further boost his approval ratings and his chances in the November election. Yet we have seen temporary increases in consumer confidence before — most memorably in January 2010 — that quickly ebbed in the face of later negative economic news. Either way, the economic trends of the next six to eight months are likely the most important factor in determining whether Barack Obama wins a second term in November.

Read the full article →

Adele Scheele: Making Meetings Mean Something

February 10, 2012

For some companies, the usual Monday morning meeting is becoming unusual. It is revamping itself, becoming a stand-up, short-lived check-in. For those who still endure the old sit-down conference table version, the format is unbearably predictable: the boss unceremoniously starts the meeting by reading the agenda, reciting the latest sales report, warning of anticipated obstacles, and then spends the remainder of the time discussing the pet peeves and projects of the few most vocal employees excluding everyone else. Or else there are the endless arguments over old issues that never get resolved. For many of us, coping with meetings is more stressful than doing the actual work — it often feels like not much is accomplished. Sixty to ninety minutes of tortuous boredom leads to anger, which, in turn, leads to withdrawing to keep from exploding or else becoming a comedian to camouflage emotions. Most of us are stuck in a frustrating situation we feel unable to change. Maybe the only people who don’t bristle during routine, energy-sapping staff meetings are the managers who call them and those unlucky ones whose jobs are even more unbearable than the meetings. Instead of increasing your blood pressure or clenching your jaws, why not try to turn the situation around to our own advantage? Here are some tactics that can lead you to a more effective meeting outcome and better mood: 1. Start by changing your own role. Play host early and greet people by asking each about some recent good news. Share yours too. 2. During meetings, compliment any good idea out loud and suggest ways it might benefit your group. If two ideas offered are similar or complementary, suggest a way to incorporate both. 3. When factual disputes arise, suggest an immediate decision on principle, rather than fact. 4. When the old, unresolved issue rears its ugly head again, suggest a way towards resolution; perhaps a debate. Offer to find someone who can act as a debate coach, working with your group divided into opposing teams. In a short time, perhaps only two hours, a rational decision can be forged to everyone’s relief. 5. When you want to introduce an idea, be strategic. Don’t bring it up by the usual method — flinging it into the middle of the table and hoping that others will respond. Nobody does. Ideas, even good ones, usually fall flat. Instead, prior to the meeting, garner support from your leader and several members of the team so that you are backed up and can ensure better results. 6. Invent more roles to play during different meetings. Ask questions to elicit action or piggyback on a good idea or project. Just don’t play antagonist or devil’s advocate more than once. 7. Summarize what has already been agreed to; note new agenda items from stray conversations for subsequent meetings. 8. After a major project, suggest that each team member tell what he or she has contributed. Then go around again asking them to tell what they would do differently if the project were repeated. Record their remarks from what they’ve learned and see how you can use them next time. Don’t be deterred by flack by others who think you are overstepping; try to get them involved too. You might talk to your manager about how to gather what’s been learned to make the next projects more effective. 9. Of course, not every plan will work every time. But it’s worth a try. More than a try. Not only does trying keep your anger quotient and your blood pressure down, but it gives you a chance to realize what the rest of your group craves — someone willing to change things so that they will work better. Let that someone be you! Make your luck happen!

Read the full article →

Mathias Terheggen: The Wealth Gap Challenge

February 10, 2012

Philanthropy and the wealth gap challenge Economic growth and the question of its “if and when” is a very popular topic these days. Analysts have been providing outlooks on 2012′s economic development. But in their attempts to foresee the future one thing is already clear: regardless of how the economies will develop, the outcome is going to be more positive for those who already have and earn a lot compared to the financially less fortunate. This phenomenon, the “wealth gap,” is not new and we have become used to the fact that, with few exceptions, particularly in developing countries the wealth disparity is growing steadily. What is new though is that within developed economies — among them are some of the strongest globally — the wealth gap is widening too. Countries as diverse as the U.S., Italy and Germany all have grown their Gini-coefficient, a measure of income inequality, over the last 30 years. And even Hong Kong, whose economy grew by over 6% at 3% unemployment last year, not only holds a global record for growing the number of millionaires but also, or maybe therefore, one for the highest income inequality ratio among developed economies. An ever-growing challenge This has given rise to substantial concern. While low levels of economic inequality are desirable to maintain an impetus for individual economic development, a large wealth gap is known to discourage individual economic efforts which, in turn, results in lessened economic power for large parts of the society. Public upheaval and political revolutions as seen during the Arab Spring are only the most blatant symptoms of the detrimental effect on societies caused by limited economic opportunity and unfair wealth distribution. With low-income households statistically producing a higher number of off-spring, strong income inequality virtually results in an increasing number of children slipping off into poverty, poor healthcare and education. The generation responsible for long-term economic growth is hence disengaged, and a society’s ability to innovate from within itself jeopardized. Ultimately, this will limit the future economic potential also of those on the more fortunate side of the wealth gap, too. Donating doesn’t do the trick The economic crisis of 2008 caused a tightening of public budgets which, in turn, has resulted in reductions of social welfare. This has led to a more critical public view on the financially successful, and so the wealthy nowadays have both an intrinsic and an extrinsic motivation to re-consider their role in dealing with the wealth gap and related social issues. It comes by no surprise that therefore the past years have seen many wealthy go public with their social engagement and openly demand more substantial measures to foster social equality from their peers. The public response has been very mixed with reactions reaching from friendly acknowledgement to acid accusations of fig-leaf efforts. A closer look at the role private philanthropy can play in closing the wealth gap might therefore be appropriate. One myth to make away with at the outset is that donations to the poor won’t solve the wealth gap challenge. While total global private giving is estimated to exceed USD 600 bn annually, this amount represented less than half of the wealth transferred from the bottom 80 to the top 20 percent of households in the US during the financial crisis from 2007 to 2009 alone. Hence, private philanthropy by wealthy individuals must play a different role if it means to prevent societies from getting destabilized. An entrepreneurial approach Indeed, philanthropy can have a catalytic role in encouraging and supporting social innovation: being liable to their own preferences and requirements only, as opposed to donors like most public fund-raising non-profit organisations, philanthropists can take higher risks like funding interventions and organizations in early stages of development. Philanthropists can afford the risk for a project to default, e.g., through a project owner’s unexpected death, knowing that the draw-back will be off- set by other successful initiatives within their portfolio. In addition, today’s private donors are increasingly seeking ways to make their social engagement not only more strategic and long-term in order to achieve systemic change, but they go far beyond their mere financial contributions. Building on their professional success they leverage their knowledge and network, engage non-financial capacities like companies and employees, and most importantly, they apply their mind-set and experience as an entrepreneurs and investors to their philanthropy. Addressing social issues with an entrepreneurial approach including the idea of revenue generation through the provision of social products and services has resulted in efficiency and scalability and triggered some of the most remarkable recent trends in the social sector. On the giving side Venture Philanthropy and Impact Investing have taken giving beyond grants towards actual investments that include the expectation of a financial return for the investor. The ratio of social versus financial return generated by the investment may vary depending on the social investor’s priorities. But the mere fact of making an investment, rather than giving money away, has a groundbreaking effect on the recipient’s commitment, not least as it is an explicit sign of trust in the recipient’s abilities. All these trends yield social interventions that often address social issues that weren’t addressable before. But in all cases they increase the efficiency and effectiveness thereby growing the social impact. Enabler and catalyser It is through this role as enabler, supporter and advocate of social innovation that private philanthropy addresses the wealth gap challenge: not only do they deliver new social interventions, but by using their extensive networks and acting as figures of public influence they promote what ultimately will be adopted by larger non-profit organisations and, increasingly, by governments. Especially the latter are turning towards private philanthropy on their search for social innovation that enables the public sector to fulfill its social mandate while minding the costs. The recent launch of a program by the German bank for economic development, KfW, that provides financing to social entrepreneurs under the condition that they can secure additional funding by private donors, is an apt example of governments trying to harness the innovative power of private philanthropists. These interventions will increase the ability of the less fortunate both in developed or developing countries to have access to appropriate healthcare and education. This will help lay the foundations for future economic growth and participation in it: by linking private philanthropy of the wealthy to the economic participation of the less wealthy, the social fabric that makes for a stable, fair society is strengthened. Transparency to gain momentum Private philanthropy will not balance societies that are otherwise challenged in their social cohesion through an overly inhomogeneous distribution of wealth and income. But it can, if done credibly, be a starting point for systemic change — all the while shaping the future of the wealthy, too. Transparency on individual efforts could create the desired momentum as it allows for discussions on objectives and priorities as well as for collaboration. However, given the reputational risk and the challenges of building a successful philanthropic track record, such transparency may at first only be acceptable within the peer group. Closed conferences, of which there aren’t too many yet, but where leading philanthropists, experts and social-sector professionals gather to exchange knowledge and further their philanthropy, have proven to be a very effective means. Very often such gatherings boost alliances around a shared theme of interest, they build scale and subsequently become visible to the broader public including private, public and civil sector organizations.

Read the full article →

Alabama’s Largest City Looks For Alternatives To Payday Lenders

February 10, 2012

The biggest city in Alabama is putting its payday lenders on notice. Bankers and community leaders in Birmingham, Alabama met Thursday to discuss developing new financial resources for cash-strapped residents , according to The Birmingham News . The meeting was part of the city’s broader effort to relax the influence of payday lenders — small loan shops where borrowers can get quick cash, but often end up sucked into a cycle of debt thanks to the lenders’ high interest rates. While Birmingham leaders say they can’t force the payday lenders to close up shop, they are talking about adopting a program similar to San Francisco’s Bank On initiative , which aims to offer safe, non-exploitative resources — including financial counseling, online pay options and inexpensive checking and savings accounts — to people who are hesitant to use traditional banks. Nearly 8 percent of U.S. households are “unbanked,” or don’t have a checking or savings account, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data cited by The New York Times . Another nearly 18 percent of Americans have a checking or savings account, but still use alternative financial services. In Alabama, more than 20 percent of households have sought loans from payday lenders, according to the Associated Press. Birmingham’s pushback against payday lenders comes at a moment when a vast number of Americans are cash strapped, pushing them to turn to an off-brand loan shop. Thanks to high unemployment and flat wages, a growing number of Americans are struggling to simply put food on the table and cover other basic household expenses . Nearly half of all households in the U.S. are only one financial emergency away from the poverty line . Amid such a weak economic climate, payday lenders have thrived . But consumer-protection advocates are beginning to take a hard line against the industry. Richard Cordray, who recently assumed control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has put payday loan regulation front and center on his agenda, despite protests from lenders that they provide a valuable service to borrowers in a tight spot. Payday lenders have come under particular criticism for allegations that they target and take advantage of minority borrowers. A study by the Center for Responsible Lending found that in some regions, payday loan shops are clustered disproportionately in African-American and Latino neighborhoods , and that minorities form a large part of their customer base.

Read the full article →

R. Paul Herman: Warren Buffett’s Billions at Risk; Berkshire Hathaway Is Lowest-Rated on Sustainability

February 10, 2012

Co-authored with analyst Maximilian Lichtenheld of HIP Investor. Warren Buffett is known as the “Oracle of Omaha,” but does his view towards sustainability warrant this title in the 21st century? Not according to the ” HIP 100 ” investment index and portfolio. Berkshire is rated dead last of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. based on low sustainability results and lack of information on its conglomerate’s actions and results. Why? Because Warren Buffett, vice chair Charlie Munger and the Board of Directors — including Bill Gates –have yet to embrace sustainability, the concept that human, environmental, social and governance factors can drive increased profitability and shareholder value. The shareholders and Board voted down a proposal at last year’s shareholder meeting in Omaha to quantify the risks related to pollution and carbon emissions, as well as rejecting the need for setting goals to reduce them. This is strange: because reducing waste and greenhouse gases leads to lower costs, fewer liabilities and reduced risk. At that shareholder meeting, Buffett stated that climate change is not a material risk to Berkshire. Yet $30.6 billion, or 29%, of Berkshire Hathaway’s operating company revenue is heavily contingent on the issues related to climate and energy. Berkshire’s earnings growth has not met analyst projections as the reinsurance businesses of BRK suffered heavy losses due to extreme weather. Moreover, the potential impact of climate change on BRK’s equity holdings (partial rather than full ownership, like Coca-Cola, Kraft and Wells Fargo) is even higher. Approximately 40 percent of revenues are facing increased risk, representing about 1 in 4 employees, according to our analysis at HIP Investor. An analysis of BRK’s operating companies resulted in a peculiar result as sustainable business practices are incorporated at home construction and manufacturing firms, yet two of the biggest insurers, GEICO and General Re, appear not to pursue any strategies considering environmental impacts on their business models. Including these factors could lead to more sustainable profits with a largely reduced exposure to high-impact risks. The industry finally has to recognize that “black swans” risk becoming the “new normal.” Another crucial aspect that might be detrimental to BRK’s performance is also rising prices of clean water. The Coca-Cola Company, in which BRK holds a major equity stake, uses 2.36 liters of water to produce 1 liter of soda — consider that next time you drink a soda. In India, the water-to-soda ratio amounts to 4:1, resulting in the waste of 75 per cent of water input. As water is the main ingredient for all beverages, even a slight increase in its price could lead to a fall of profits. An improvement in water efficiency might incur capital expenditures in the short run, but will reduce costs in the long run, serving as a competitive advantage. Some of Berkshire’s businesses are actively expanding in the alternative energy sector, such as Mid American Energy Holding’s acquisition of the Topaz project , one of the world’s largest photovoltaic power plants, for $2 billion. Imitating this strategic expansion across the conglomerate could be quite beneficial for BRK. For BRK’s last fiscal quarterly statement, ending October 2011, Berkshire said “profit from underwriting insurance fell 83 percent to $81 million amid the most costly hurricane season since the record storms of 2005.” As profits associated with the insurance subsidiaries fell by more than 77 percent on investments, it is time for Berkshire’s board — which includes Bill Gates — to accept the importance of climate for business. A study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) entitled ” Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation ” (SREX)’ supports the notion that extreme weather occurrences are going to increase in frequency, hugely affecting BRK’s potential for generating sustainable revenues in the insurance and re-insurance businesses. “Extreme events will have greater impacts on sectors with closer links to climate, such as water, agriculture and food security, forestry, health, and tourism,” requiring economies to adapt and not stick blindly to a status quo. If weather-related disasters increase in frequency, profits could quickly evaporate, unless the issue of climate change is actively included in company strategies. Other reinsurers, namely Swiss Re, do acknowledge the impact of climate change and estimate that the associated market accounts to $5 billion , which consists of various over the counter contract weather derivatives, as well as other insurable risks regarding renewable energies. However, the acceptance of the changed circumstances does not only create new markets, but allows to incorporate these changes into the risk models. Ignoring the tremendous risks of climate change can be lethal for a firm. If BRK would take steps to counter these challenges through systematic implementations of sustainable business practices across all operating companies, as well as pushing for sustainable changes at their equity stakes, then revenues could be more stable, avoiding losses and positively impacting society. Warren Buffett’s potential impact on sustainability would go far beyond BRK though, as typically his investments are widely followed and influence investors in their decisions. Once this self-reinforcing cycle is initiated, economies and firms could become more sustainable in performance, hence they could weather economic shocks better. Volumes on IBM trading doubled days after Buffett announced his investment in the company in 2011. Forging ahead on sustainable firms could thereby lead to a large multiplier effect for the entire industry. Will Buffett become more “HIP,” supporting the theme that solving human, social and environmental challenges can increase the potential for more profit? Will BRK survive without adapting to more sustainable business practices? That is up to Mr. Buffett, Charlie Munger and the Board — but it will determine whether BRK can continue its 20th century leadership into the 21st century. Co-author Maximilian Lichtenheld is an Analyst at HIP Investor Inc., an MBA candidate at London School of Economics (LSE), and the Founder and President of LSE’s M&A (Mergers&Acquisitions) Society, President of LSE’s Swiss Society and Vice-President of the Austrian Society. NOTE: This is not an offer of securities nor a solicitation. The information presented is for information and education purposes, and does NOT imply any investment recommendations. Past performance is not indicative of future results. All investing risks loss of principal. The authors, HIP Investor and HIP’s clients may invest in the securities mentioned above, including in the HIP 100 Index portfolio. Details and full disclosures are at www.HIPinvestor.com

Read the full article →

Owner Of ‘Illegal’ California Gold Mine Surrenders To Face Charges

February 10, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A man who state and local officials say is running a massive illegal gold-mining operation in California’s Sierra Nevada surrendered Thursday to face 14 criminal charges of operating without permits and polluting a creek. Joseph Hardesty also faces state fines of nearly $900,000. He was booked into El Dorado County Jail on the charges, which include four felonies, and was being held in lieu of $75,000 bond. His attorney, William Brewer, says Hardesty turned himself in after investigators from the district attorney’s office searched for him at his mother’s home and the home of his partner in the Big Cut Mine, near Placerville. Hardesty surrendered a day after The Associated Press published a story about the mine, which is in the Sierra foothills between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe, and his three-year battle with authorities. “It’s unfortunate that our government has decided in this case to take away our liberties and our rights without adequate process,” said Brewer, of San Diego. “Joe really is a very honorable person and I just wish things were different.” He denies his client is mining gold, saying he is operating a sand and gravel business to complement another he owns in Sacramento County. State and local officials say they have evidence and statements indicating the site is being mined for gold at a time when the precious metal’s price is hovering near $1,700 an ounce. Hardesty, 54, had promised to surrender last week but failed to appear. Authorities said Hardesty turned himself in at the sheriff department’s office in Placerville about 11:30 a.m. and was taken to jail without incident. Brewer said investigators had looked for his client everywhere except where he was — his home in Elk Grove, south of Sacramento. Hardesty contends that he has a historic right to operate the Big Cut Mine on nearly 150 acres he bought seven years ago, based on a reclamation plan he had filed with El Dorado County in 2009 and $188,000 in bonds. Local authorities and the State Mining and Geology Board disagree. On top of the mining board’s fines, El Dorado County charged Hardesty with mining and grading without permits, working despite stop orders, releasing sediment into Weber Creek, violating zoning laws, and using hazardous materials without proper permits. Hardesty, his wife, Yvette, and his partner, Rick Churches, brought in heavy equipment to cut into a steep ridge high above the creek, although Joseph Hardesty is the only one facing charges. The site is guarded by locked gates covered with “no trespassing” signs, but an AP reporter and photographer were able to view the mining operation from a heavily forested ridge a few hundred yards away. Late last month, local and state inspectors with a warrant entered the property and documented at least 30 acres stripped bare, four drainage ponds and a football-field-sized gravel bed about 60 feet deep. Inspectors previously found gold on what is called a shaker table, which is used to separate the heavy metal from sand and gravel. Bruce Person, an engineer with the county transportation department who helped inspect the property, said a previous owner found an ancient riverbed on the property could produce between 1 and 3 ounces of gold for every ton of material. El Dorado County Deputy District Attorney Michael Pizzuti declined to comment Thursday on Hardesty’s arrest. He previously told the AP that Hardesty’s partner told a county inspector that they intended to remove gold and sell the rocks it was separated from as gravel. Hardesty already was on probation after pleading no contest last year to a misdemeanor charge of storing unpermitted hazardous waste in Sacramento County. He now faces allegations that he violated his probation by continuing to operate at both the Sacramento and El Dorado locations. The fines were levied in January by the State Mining and Geology Board, a division of the California Department of Conservation. The penalty climbs by $15,000 for each day he continued to operate.

Read the full article →

Elliott Negin: Monsanto’s Great Expectations (and Not-So-Great Results)

February 10, 2012

Photo: Russell Max Simon With apologies to Charles Dickens, whose 200th birthday was this week, it’s the best of times and the worst of times for Monsanto, the agribusiness giant that is aggressively marketing genetically engineered crops — and millions of tons of pesticides — worldwide. It’s the best of times because its stock is soaring. Sure, the St. Louis-based leviathan has been up before — and down. In 2009, Forbes magazine proclaimed it company of the year. The next year its stock tanked, and Mad Money TV host Jim Cramer proclaimed it the worst of 2010. Now its up again, and last month Forbes was hyperventilating over the fact Monsanto has outperformed most high-tech stocks over the last five years. But just like the plot in Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations , Forbes ‘ rosy scenario is not the whole story. You may vaguely remember the 19th century novel from high school English. According to a column in last Sunday’s Washington Post , its main lesson is: “You will never fully comprehend the most important events in your life while they are happening. Any plans you make will not work out — and you may grow up to be a jerk. If you are lucky, however, a series of traumatic events will wake you up and show you how insufferable you have become.” If you replace the book’s protagonist Pip with Monsanto and look at the company through the prism of science instead of its stock profile, my tortured analogy makes sense. Despite more than 20 years of research and 15 years of marketing, Monsanto’s great expectation that genetic engineering would dramatically increase food production and reduce pesticide use has been dashed. Unlike Pip, however, the company has not yet woken up to the fact that its products don’t perform as advertised. That’s why it’s also the worst of times. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has spent quite a bit of time investigating Monsanto’s track record. In April 2009, he published ” Failure to Yield ,” the only comprehensive study to date that separates genetic engineering’s contribution from other factors that can increase yields. After reviewing two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans — the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops in the United States — he found that genetically engineered traits in herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn have not increased yields, and insect-resistant traits have improved corn yields only marginally. The substantial increase in yields for both crops over the previous 13 years was largely due to traditional breeding and better agricultural practices, not genetically engineered traits. More recently — just a few days ago, in fact — Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in UCS’s Food and Environment Program posted a web feature, ” Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture ,” documenting how Monsanto has broadly failed to deliver on its promise to increase yields, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers’ livelihoods over the long run. “Monsanto talks about ‘producing more,’ ‘conserving more,’ and ‘improving lives,’ but it’s a PR fantasy,” said Gurian-Sherman. “In reality, the company is doing a great job selling more engineered seeds and herbicide and fattening its bottom line at the expense of the environment. To be sure, there are a lot of farmers who buy Monsanto seed, but they buy it mainly because it’s convenient, it saves them time, and it does kill some pests. That doesn’t mean that it’s better for the environment.” Besides the fact that Monsanto’s genetically engineered traits have failed to substantially increase yields, its heavy promotion of crops designed to be impervious to the company’s RoundUp herbicide has inadvertently created resistant “super” weeds, UCS experts report. That not only can make farming more difficult and costly, it forces farmers to use even more herbicides, which threatens the environment and public health. UCS also found that Monsanto’s focus on genetic engineering and chemical fixes thwarts research and development of cheaper, more effective solutions, including public sector classical crop breeding and environmentally friendly farming methods. Given the unvarnished facts, how has Monsanto been able to convince anyone that it is, according to its latest PR effort, “improving agriculture and improving lives”? In large part by spending tens of millions of dollars annually on advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. In the fall of 2008, Monsanto launched an advertising campaign that continues to this day. An outgrowth of the company’s “sustainable yield initiative,” it has targeted opinion leaders and federal policymakers with full-page ads in the Atlantic Monthly , New Yorker , New Republic and other elite publications, as well as with posters in subway stations, on bus shelters, and on the sides of metro buses here in Washington. Last year, Monsanto spent $100 million on the ad campaign, down slightly from the $120 million it spent in 2010, according to Securities and Exchange Commission figures . The company also spent $6.37 million on lobbying –more than any other agricultural company or trade group–and so far has contributed more than $170,000 to political campaigns in the 2011-2012 election cycle, the third highest in the agricultural sector. Monsanto’s claims in earlier ads were more explicit than ones circulating now. For example, an ad on the New Yorker ‘s back cover that ran the same week Gurian-Sherman released his “Failure to Yield” report back in 2009 stated : “Providing abundant and accessible food means putting the latest science-based tools in farmers’ hands, including advanced hybrid and biotech seeds. Monsanto’s advanced seeds not only significantly increase crop yields, they use fewer key resources — like land and fuel — to do it. That’s a win-win for people, and the earth itself.” The company’s latest print ads , which all feature the headline “Improving agriculture, improving lives,” are toned down by comparison. They insinuate that Monsanto is accomplishing something grand and noble instead of making demonstrably false claims. For example, one ad states: “In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help protect resources and promote biodiversity.” Another one states: “In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth’s natural resources.” They all wrap up with: “That’s improving agriculture. That’s improving lives. And that’s what Monsanto is all about.” The best response to Monsanto’s misleading ad campaign? A well-worn quote from Great Expectations : “Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There’s no better rule.” Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. For information on how to get involved with UCS’s effort to set the record straight on Monsanto, click here .

Read the full article →

Sources: GOP Congressman Faces Insider-Trading Investigation

February 10, 2012

The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee over possible violations of insider-trading laws, according to sources familiar with the case.

Read the full article →

Google’s $12.5 Billion Deal Expected To Be Approved

February 9, 2012

By Diane Bartz WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Justice Department will approve Google’s $12.5 billion bid to acquire Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc, according to sources close to the antitrust review. The department is also expected to approve an Apple-led consortium’s bid to acquire a group of patents from bankrupt Canadian company Nortel Networks. Both deals are expected to be cleared early next week. Google, whose Android software is the top operating system for Internet-enabled smart phones, announced in August it planned to acquire phone-maker Motorola Mobility. The deal will give Google one of the mobile phone industry’s largest patent libraries, as well as hardware manufacturing operations that will allow Google to develop its own line of smart phones. The Apple-led consortium, which includes RIM, Microsoft, EMC, Ericsson and Sony, had agreed in July pay $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents and patent applications that telecom-equipment maker Nortel had put up for sale, including coveted 4G wireless technologies. The companies joined forces to outbid Google for the patents. Google, the world’s No. 1 search engine, has been under increasing regulatory scrutiny. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the European Union are both investigating Google’s business practices. The company faces accusations it uses its clout in the search market to beat rivals as it moves into related businesses. The Justice Department will likely continue monitoring patent litigation in the telecom space, according to the sources. The department of Justice, Google, and Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. (Reporting By Diane Bartz; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Read the full article →

Huge Scandal Rattles San Francisco-Based Snack Company

February 9, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO — Diamond Foods Inc. is replacing its CEO and chief financial officer after an internal investigation found that the company improperly accounted for payments to walnut growers and it needs to restate two years of financial results. The news, announced late Wednesday, sent shares of the San Francisco-based company plummeting more than 43 percent in after-hours trading. Diamond Foods, which makes Emerald Nuts and Pop Secret popcorn, has been embroiled in a dispute over the payments for several months. The company said that its audit committee found that the payments were booked in the wrong period. The payments – an estimated $20 million in 2010 and $60 million in 2011 – skewed the company’s financial results. Diamond Foods placed its CEO Michael Mendes and Chief Financial Officer Steven Neil on administrative leave. The company is looking for permanent replacements. In the meantime, it appointed Rick Wolford, a Diamond Foods director and former CEO of Del Monte Foods, as its acting CEO. Michael Murphy, of Alix Parners, will serve as acting chief financial officer. The deal could put Diamond Foods’ plans to acquire the Pringles brand from Procter & Gamble Co. in jeopardy. The deal, worth $1.5 billion when it was announced in April, would be the biggest acquisition ever for Diamond Foods and make it the second-largest snack maker in the nation behind PepsiCo Inc. The collapse of Diamond Foods’ shares also hurts its ability to finance the deal. Cincinnati-based P&G called the news from Diamond Foods “very disappointing.” It said in a statement that it is evaluating its next steps and keeping all its options open. “Pringles remains a valuable asset and it has attracted considerable interest from other outside parties,” P&G said. Shares of Diamond Foods were halted in trading earlier in the day but fell $15.88 to $20.78 in after-hours trading. Its shares have been on a downward slide since hitting $96.13 in late September. Diamond Foods said it takes the integrity of its financial statements seriously and is working to complete the restatements as soon as possible.

Read the full article →

North Dakota Walmart Evicts Workers Living In Parking Lot

February 9, 2012

Apparently one Walmart isn’t cool with people squatting in its parking lot. Dozens of workers who have flocked to Williston, North Dakota to benefit from the region’s oil boom have been living in tents and trailers for months outside of a local Walmart, but last Monday, the retail chain’s management told the squatters to go or be towed, The Bismarck Tribune reports . Lines of RVs accommodated workers shoulder-to-shoulder but after receiving a variety of complaints, including from female customers who said they feared walking through the camp to shop, Walmart officials say they’ve had enough. “It’s just not appropriate for people to be living in our parking lot,” Walmart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling told The Bismarck Tribune . And it seems that the town’s residents agree. “Walmart is hell. You just don’t want to go there,” said one member of the Nehring family, a group of sisters who have been featured in a reality TV show Boomtown Girls that’s being shopped to networks like TLC and MTV. “You can’t find anything because it’s all cleared out,” another Nehring sister explains. The camp is just one result of a huge population influx into Williston, thanks to a promise of plentiful — and well-paid — work in the oil industry. North Dakota currently boasts the lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.3 percent. No doubt because of that, housing has become scarce in the town and the apartments that are available have seen huge jumps in rent , with prices sometimes increasing threefold. More than 1,000 longtime Williston residents have abandoned the town in the past two years due to crowding and the boost in living expenses. The oil rush has had other negative impacts as well. Drunken bar fights have become more common as workers try to blow off steam after long hours. Charges of Driving Under the Influence have also grown more typical, while instances of theft more than doubled in 2011 compared to the year before. Exotic dancing has also become a thriving industry in the town, with some strippers making up to $3,000 per night in tips alone . The popularity of the clubs may be due in part to the low ratio of women to men in the town, which may explain why some are “feeling like a piece of meat” in Walmart’s parking lot, as one Nehring sister put it.

Read the full article →

GOP Crafts Plan To Kill Obama Birth Control Rule

February 9, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s rule requiring most employers’ insurance plans to pay for birth control with no co-pay for employees has infuriated conservatives at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, renewing the calls for repealing health care reform. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told The Huffington Post that Congress needs to try to reverse Obama’s decision, which has caused a firestorm among many conservatives because religiously affiliated groups are not exempt from the rule. King suggested killing it by attaching a measure to a piece of must-pass legislation, such as the upcoming Surface Transportation Bill. “If the president vetoes it, then we’re back to square one,” he said. “So if it goes on a piece of must-pass legislation like maybe a Surface Transportation Bill, there’s a chance that the president will sign a bill like that. I’m going to let others push on that strategy — Surface Transportation Bill or some other must-pass piece of legislation.” The new rule stems from the Affordable Care Act. Most women employed in the U.S. will have the cost of their birth control covered with no co-pay , effective Aug. 1. The rule exempted employers, including churches and other places of worship whose primary purpose is imparting religious beliefs. But many religious groups argued it was too narrow and should apply to religious-affiliated organizations as well. The Obama administration disagreed, but gave these employers an extra year to comply with the new law. Ultimately, King added, Congress needs to push for the repeal of health care reform, where the new rule originated. “This is the president’s decision, made by Kathleen Sebelius,” said King, referring to the secretary of Health and Human Services. “This decision was not made at HHS. It was made in the White House. Barack Obama made this decision or approved this decision and the way to rectify it is to repeal Obamacare.” WATCH: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has already put forward a bill that would allow religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations that morally oppose contraception to refuse to cover it for their employees. He said no decision has been made on the timing of bringing legislation to the floor. Asked if he sees any middle ground with the White House, he proposed letting individual churches choose whether to pay for contraception for their employees. In the House, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the House Energy and Commerce Committee is taking the lead “through appropriate legislative channels.” The Senate’s $109 billion Surface Transportation Bill moved to the floor on Thursday. It reauthorizes federal public transportation programs at current levels for two more fiscal years. The broader House bill would cover five years of transportation spending. The House GOP leadership has planned on a Feb. 17 vote . UPDATE — 7:54 p.m.: The Huffington Post’s Mike McAuliff reports that Senate Republicans did end up going with the strategy King mentioned, offering an amendment to the transportation bill aimed at countering birth control regulations under the health care law. They attempted to block the rule before it even took effect by amending the Surface Transportation Bill that the Senate had voted 85 to 11 to start debating. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took umbrage at the move, saying, “Here is a bipartisan bill to create and save jobs. Every state in the union is desperate for these dollars. But to show how the Republicans never lose an opportunity to mess up a good piece of legislation, listen to this: They’re talking about First Amendment rights, the Constitution.”

Read the full article →

SEC May Target Big Banks In Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

February 9, 2012

Regulators may be preparing a lawsuit against some of the country’s largest banks in order to probe their role in the acceleration of the financial crisis. The Securities and Exchange Commission is planning to formally warn a number of firms that sold mortgage-backed securities in the years leading up to the meltdown of an impending enforcement action, the Wall Street Journal reports. At issue is whether banks knew at the time that the mortgages backing their securities were of poor quality — and whether the banks nevertheless presented a picture of the loans that was misleadingly reassuring. Mortgage-backed securities are generally believed to have played a central role in the near-meltdown of the national banking system a few years ago. The country’s largest financial firms repeatedly bundled subprime mortgages and used them to guarantee securities that were sold to investors. When those mortgages proved unsound, it triggered a series of financial failures that dealt a severe blow to the national economy. If such a lawsuit does come to pass, it would be part of a broader effort on the part of the federal government to assign responsibility for the financial crisis — and to better regulate hazardous trading practices and high-risk financial instruments in the hopes of preventing another one. At the same time, the SEC has been criticized for not doing more to stamp out misconduct. In 2009, one prominent whistleblower called the agency ” captive to the industry it regulates .” Multiple lawsuits and inquiries have already raised the issue of whether banks misrepresented the health of mortgage-backed securities during the housing boom. JPMorgan Chase faced one such suit last year, as did Washington Mutual and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch division . Goldman Sachs is currently facing a potential class-action suit from investors over whether it purchased a number of mortgage-backed securities in 2005 without first examining their health. Goldman was also accused last year, by an investigatory Senate panel, of misleading Congress and investors as to the safety of the mortgage-backed securities it was selling. News of the possible suit comes at a moment when banks are already being called to account for their handling of another result of the collapsing housing market: the foreclosure crisis. On Thursday, the government announced that it had reached a $25 billion settlement with some of the country’s largest financial firms — among them Citigroup, Ally and BofA, all said to be targets of the SEC investigation — over charges that the banks engaged in systematic and widespread mortgage fraud. No major bank executives have yet to face prison over their role in the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Read the full article →

Morty Lefkoe: Do You Have a Fear of Public Speaking?

February 9, 2012

If you fear public speaking more than going to the dentist, or even death, you are not alone. This fear is so common that surveys indicate that over 50 percent of the adult population of the United States experiences fear when speaking in public. As Jerry Seinfield put it quite accurately on one of his shows: Most people would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy. We have had a number of clients whose fear of speaking in pubic was so great that they turned down promotions rather than take a job that required them to speak in public on a regular basis. The saddest call we ever had was from a man who called to say his daughter had just announced to him that she was about to get married… and this news made him petrified. Why? Because he realized he was going to have to make a toast at the wedding. Interestingly enough, there is nothing inherently scary about talking to a few people who are there to hear what you have to say. And why does merely having to introduce oneself at a meeting lead many people to go to the bathroom just before it is their turn. What makes speaking in public so common and so frightful? If you’ve been reading my regular blog posts, you won’t be surprised to learn that my answer is: beliefs. In fact, after helping over 3,000 people eliminate this problem, we’ve discovered the specific beliefs that cause this fear. Let me tell you what they are and why they result in this widespread fear. Here are the beliefs that cause a fear of public speaking in most people: • Mistakes and failure are bad. • If I make a mistake or fail I’ll be rejected. • I’m not good enough. • I’m not capable. • I’m not competent. • What I have to say is not important. • People aren’t interested in what I have to say. • I’m not important. • What makes me good enough and important is having people think well of me. • Change is difficult. • Public speaking is inherently scary. To make it real that these beliefs could cause such terror in so many people, ask yourself this question: Imagine someone, whom you don’t know, who really had all the beliefs I listed above. Do you think she would be afraid to speak in public? In fact, wouldn’t you be willing to wager that she would have public speaking anxiety? Why these beliefs cause a fear of speaking in public I think most people would agree that anyone with these beliefs would fear public speaking. And here’s why: A belief is nothing more than a statement about reality that we feel is true. And if we think it is true that it is bad to make mistakes and if we do we’ll be rejected, and if our sense of importance is dependent on others thinking well of us — then we would have to be terrified when we stand up to speak in front of others because we could make a mistake, leading to rejection, and because we would feel less important if people thought less of us. But you might be thinking: I am afraid to speak in public but I don’t agree with most of these beliefs. Here’s a strange thing about beliefs: It is possible to intellectually disagree with a belief we hold. In other words, early in life we might have concluded as a result of interactions with our parents that it’s bad to make a mistake (because mom and dad got upset when we didn’t live up to their expectations). Now, today, we might realize that innovation is possible only if we are willing to try new things that might not work out. Mistakes are part of the process of doing something new and different. So we “know” that it’s okay to make mistakes and learn from them. But merely knowing that does not get rid of beliefs. If fear is not inherent in public speaking and if the fear is caused by specific beliefs, then eliminating the beliefs will eliminate the fear. Not reduce it or make it easier to deal with. Eliminate it. Research proves eliminating beliefs eliminates public speaking fear A study conducted by the University of Arizona several years ago determined that if the beliefs listed above (and a few conditionings) were eliminated, the mean level of fear of the subjects studied fell from 7 to 1.5 on a scale of 1-10, one being no fear whatsoever and 10 being terror. To prove this to yourself, get rid of three of the 11 beliefs that cause a fear of public speaking (and a bunch of other unpleasant feelings) by using a free belief-elimination process at http://recreateyourlife.com/free . Your fear of speaking in public is not due to “human nature.” You can rid yourself of that terrifying prospect once and for all.

Read the full article →

National Mortgage Settlement All But Inevitable As California, New York Join Deal

February 9, 2012

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris are joining the national mortgage servicing settlement, making a deal that includes all 50 states all but inevitable, according to a source who spoke Wednesday evening on condition of anonymity. “It’s hard to see any state staying out of the deal if California is in,” said the source. The settlement resolves allegations that five of the nation’s largest banks forged documents and wrongfully foreclosed on borrowers in what has come to be known as the “robo-signing” scandal. Schneiderman and Harris have been outspoken in urging the Obama administration to hold the nation’s biggest banks accountable for their role in the housing crisis and have resisted signing on to the settlement until now over concerns that it would go too easy on the banks and provide too little homeowner relief. The two states’ participation had widely been seen as necessary to a successful deal. California has been one of the hardest hit states during the foreclosure crisis, and because of this was considered a key state when it came to securing a deal. The five banks participating in the settlement — Ally Financial, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase — agreed to contribute a total of $25 billion to help struggling homeowners if California joined the deal. Without California, that figure would drop to $19 billion. The deal is being negotiated between the state attorneys general, the Obama administration and the banks. The majority of the settlement money is earmarked for helping homeowners change the terms of a mortgage or refinance it, or reduce the amount of principal owed. In this election year, the proposed deal has become a political lighting rod as some consumer advocates have criticized the Obama administration for what they perceive as terms that deliver too little help to desperate homeowners. “Even if the final settlement number is $25 billion, it pales in comparison to the scope of the problem,” said Margery Golant, a Florida-based attorney who represents homeowners and formerly served as assistant general counsel at subprime mortgage giant Ocwen Financial. “If you do the math, that’s a few hundred million per state. That’s not enough to change anything.” California and New York are joining more than 40 states that already have agreed to the settlement. Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada and Delaware have remained resistant to joining, though that will likely change now with California’s and New York’s participation, sources familiar with the negotiations said. Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said last week that a deal “will be finalized, I would expect, in the coming days.” A final deal has not been announced.

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Life & a Cheap Death at Wal-Mart

February 9, 2012

Ten months ago, Sprawl-Busters first reported the death of a Brazilian immigrant worker during a botched renovation job by an unlicensed crew inside a Wal-Mart in Massachusetts. Romulo de Oliveira Santos died at the age of 47 on the floor of a Wal-Mart vision center in Walpole, Massachusetts. His muscles were charred, his skin was coagulated, and one-fifth of his body suffered second and third degree burns. There were bruises and cuts on his face, back, arms and hands. According to an autopsy, Santos had been electrocuted. This week, the Boston Globe picked up the Santos story in its Business section, noting a similar job site injury and death at Wal-Mart elsewhere in the country. On the night of September 8, 2008, Santos was working as part of an inexperienced, unsupervised subcontract crew on a remodeling project at Wal-Mart store #2103 on Providence Highway in Walpole. There was no properly licensed supervisor watching over crew members from Italo Masonries, for whom Santos worked. Italo had never done demolition work before. Wal-Mart hired a general contractor to oversee the reconstruction of its Vision Center, and that contractor has subbed out the interior demolition to Italo. Santos was working without licensed supervision. In 2000, Santos came to America on a work visa to pursue a dream. He wanted to become an electronic technician. Santos enrolled in ESL classes to learn English, and began working on a cleaning crew. Santos would send some of his earnings back to the city of Volta Redonda, Brazil, where his family lived. He was 39 years old when he first entered the U.S. Eight years later, he was inside the Walpole Wal-Mart working a late hour shift — his last. The construction scene inside the Vision Center was a tangle of unlabeled wires and cords. Wal-Mart had insisted that the remodeling job would proceed while the store remained open. On Santos’ last night, the general contractor, electrical contractor, and Italo Masonry all left no supervisors at the site. But several light circuits were left on, because the renovations could be done quicker and easier by leaving the area “hot.” One junction box at the top of a wall was left “hot.” Santos arrived at the site just before 10:30 pm — a time when most Wal-Mart shoppers were home in bed. Santos and his coworkers were not warned that a 227-volt circuit powering the overhead lights in the Vision Center had been left live. Santos had no reason to expect that wires behind the walls were hot. It was normal practice that live wires would be clearly marked and labeled, to avoid lethal danger. One of Santos’ coworkers began tearing down a wall that had been marked for demolition. The crew member, wielding a reciprocating saw, cut through the live wire at the top of the wall. The lights went out, leaving the whole crew in the darkened Vision Center. The crew began to exit the site, when Santos came in contact with the live wire. According to witnesses at the scene, Santos moaned in pain, and fell to the floor in between a scissors lift and the wall. A crew member rushed to his side, but Santos died within minutes — badly burned from the trauma. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued Wal-Mart an immediate stop work order, and listed numerous violations of federal safety regulations. “Workers were exposed to hazards of arc-flash and arc blast while working on energized parts of the circuit breaker panels without proper personal protective equipment,” OSHA wrote. “Employees were exposed to electric shock hazards while performing . . . tasks without de-energizing the circuits.” Attorney Brian A. Joyce of the Joyce Law Group, the firm that is handling a civil lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of the Santos family, says that Romulo’s death could have been avoided if Wal-Mart had held its general contractor to its contractual obligation to permit only properly licensed and qualified subcontractors to demolish the Vision Center. Joyce notes that the general contractor has a rap sheet with OSHA for hiring unlicensed contractors. “Wal-Mart’s callous indifference to the safety of construction workers at the Walpole store is not an isolated incident,” Joyce told Sprawl-Busters. Similar construction-related deaths have occurred in Texas, Nebraska, and Indiana. OSHA has cited Wal-Mart in numerous other cases for its negligence in protecting workers. “In its ruthless quest to cut prices and maximize profits,” Joyce charges, “Wal-Mart allows cutting corners, especially when it comes to safety, and is willing to risk the lives of construction workers to save on costs. When the sadly predictable accidents occur, Wal-Mart remorselessly opposes attempts by the surviving family members to discover what happened, and to seek justice for their lost loved ones.” The family of Romulo de Oliveira Santos has waited for almost three and a half years to see justice done in this case. The sudden death of their son who traveled to America was tragic enough — but Wal-Mart’s response since the accident has made the family’s ordeal even harder to accept. On February 14, 2011, the Boston law firm hired by Wal-Mart acknowledged in a letter to the Joyce law firm that “an offer of $25,000 was made” to the Santos family by the retailer and its general contractor as compensation for Santos’ death. That was one year ago. There has been no movement by Wal-Mart since then. Attorney Joyce says Wal-Mart’s financial offer is a slap in the face to the Santos family: “If Mr. Santos — who was in excellent health when this tragedy occurred — had worked until his retirement age, he could have had another $1 million in salary alone. Apparently $25,000 is the value that Wal-Mart puts on this man’s life.” An everyday low price for a life — from the company that made its fortune on cheap imported products — like the labor of Romulo de Oliveira Santos. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters. For almost twenty years he has been helping community groups defend themselves against big box development. His most recent book is The Case Against Wal-Mart.

Read the full article →

Clay Farris Naff: Jesus Concerned About The Poor? You Must Be Joking, Says The Christian Right

February 8, 2012

When President Obama used the occasion of the National Prayer Breakfast to say that for the fortunate to pay a little more to help the less fortunate “coincides” with Jesus’ teachings, he must have touched a nerve. How else to explain the volcanic eruption of hate that has spewed from the right in response? Exposure to the pyroclastic flow of rightwing political lava for more than a moment can cause severe brain tissue burns, so I’ll offer a few quick samples. Geoff Ross, a retired naval man and self-styled president of the Rogue Patriot Group, writes: I am correcting the record, Sir. You [are] a degenerate immoral hack that has no values or moral fiber or glue. … It is not your job to give Americans a fair shot at anything. It is up to us Americans to be able to go out and find prosperity and happiness and financial independence. It is you sir with your BOOT on the neck of this nations carotid artery that is shutting off blood flow to freedom and liberty we used to enjoy. When you remove your boot then we will prosper. … You stated Mr. President “Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers. And they are values that have always made this country great.” You make this statement yet you remove millions of dollars in federal aid from Catholic charities because they refuse to bow down to your demand that they send rape victims for mandatory abortions… Mandatory abortions? I guess they must have been authorized by the Obamacare Death Panels when we weren’t looking. Now, you might be tempted to dismiss the above drivel as just typical Internet raving. But that would be a mistake. For the fanatics of Old Time Religion, this is mainstream stuff. Here’s Fox News regular Steven Crowder: OK, you might say, this guy with his “Obama’s Burning Taxpayer-Funded Incense To Whatever Pagan, Foreign Deity He’s Worshiping” nonsense is just another attention-seeking rightwing rent-a-ranter. But it doesn’t stop there. On the floor of the Senate, Orrin Hatch of Utah took up the cudgels to berate the president about the Gospels. Short version: Hatch blasts the president for injecting a “tax-the-rich scheme” into the prayer breakfast, says the Gospels are concerned about “weightier matters,” and cautions him to remember that only one person ever walked on water. Apparently, in today’s GOP to even mention making a little financial sacrifice to help the poor is to compare yourself to the messiah. See for yourself. Why are the reactions so venomous? The answer, I think, lies in an asymmetry of belief. For mainstream believers across the political spectrum, religion is an important but limited dimension of their lives. It fosters altruism, a sense of community and a reassurance of meaning in their lives. The hotheads of the Christian Right have a completely different orientation to religion. Forget about charity, mercy or love. As far as they are concerned if Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor,” he must have meant in the afterlife. As they see it, this life is all about war. Theirs is a tribal god who bears a remarkable resemblance to the angry, vengeful and often merciless Yahweh of old. The defenders of Old Time Religion see themselves in an existential fight to the finish with Satanic enemies. And clearly they believe that Satan’s plan is to tax them into hell. It is a worldview strangely detached from the Gospels. Otherwise, you might think that when President Obama says , “if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” it might ring true. But then again, maybe that would come uncomfortably close to reminding them of something else Jesus is quoted as saying, in the Gospel of Matthew: …for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in … Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. Or this: “…sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Or, worst of all, this: “Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” No, that will never do. Better book some TV preacher on Fox News to explain it all away.

Read the full article →

House Dems: Drilling Fines Are ‘Pocket Change’ For Oil & Gas Companies

February 8, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal policing of oil and natural gas drilling on public lands is lax and inconsistent, with only 6 percent of violations resulting in monetary fines over 13 years, House Democrats said in a report Wednesday. Fines over that time totaled less than $275,000, an amount that the Democratic staff of the House Natural Resources Committee characterized as little more than “pocket change” for oil and gas companies. The report said federal regulators issued no fines in the period studied, February 1998 to February 2011, in eight of the drilling states. The report, obtained by The Associated Press before its public release later Wednesday, said the government does little to ensure accountability or protect the environment, even as drilling on federal land has increased in recent years. The increase is driven in part by hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a drilling technique that has allowed companies to extract oil and gas long locked underground. The report focuses on drilling activity that occurred on federal land in 17 states during three administrations, two Democratic and one Republican. A total of 2,025 citations for safety and drilling violations were issued to 335 companies, the report said, with 64 companies fined a total of $273,875 “It would be an overstatement to even call these fines a slap on the wrist. For oil and gas companies making billions from drilling on America’s public lands, this kind of inadequate oversight and enforcement is little more than a pin prick,” said Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey, the committee’s top Democrat. Markey and Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., requested the report. “American citizens and workers should feel confident that oil and gas companies are conducting business in the safest manner possible, and when they don’t, that the U.S. government will step in and make sure they pay the price for their actions. This report indicates that confidence in the oversight of drilling on public lands should be limited, at best,” Markey said. The Obama administration is considering new rules for fracking at oil and gas wells on federal land. President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union speech last month that the Interior Department will require energy companies to publicly disclose chemicals used in drilling for natural gas on public lands. Federal rules for fracking on public lands are set to be released in a few weeks. Adam Fetcher, a spokesman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said the department received the report Wednesday and will review it. At Obama’s direction, Interior is taking additional steps to ensure that domestic energy resources are developed safely and responsibly, “including measures to enhance public confidence in hydraulic fracturing on public lands, Fetcher said, referring to the new fracking rules expected in a few weeks. “It is essential that the public have full confidence that the right safety and environmental protections are in place,” Fetcher said. Officials said several large penalties have been assessed recently against drilling companies, including a $2.1 million civil settlement last year with Denver-based Berry Petroleum Co., after an employee disabled production gauges that could have affected royalty payments on more than 150 Utah oil wells. In fracking, millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are pumped into wells to break up underground rock formations, allowing oil and gas to escape. Energy companies have greatly expanded their use of fracking as they tap previously unreachable shale deposits, including the lucrative Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania, New York and neighboring states. The drilling practice has also attracted increased attention from Congress and regulators, as private groups and government agencies research whether it poses a danger to drinking water. The report found that more than 2,000 violations were handed out by the Interior Department to oil and gas companies drilling on federal land. Of these, 549, or 27 percent, were classified by committee staff as a major environmental or safety violation. More than half the major violations stemmed from a nonfunctioning or missing blowout preventer, the same device that failed in the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the report said. A total of 113 major violations cited inadequate well-casing or cementing, another problem that occurred in the BP spill. Onshore, well-casing and cementing are a key defense against groundwater contamination. On at least 54 occasions, oil and gas companies began drilling on federal land before receiving formal approval to do so, the report said. Despite those problems, monetary fines were rarely issued, the report said. In eight states — Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota and West Virginia — no fines were issued for the period studied. Thirteen companies were cited for at least 30 violations over the period studied, topped by Oklahoma-based Williams Production RMT Co., which received 98 citations and seven fines totaling $6,000. Colorado-based Encana Oil & Gas Inc. received 63 citations and four fines totaling $11,000, while Texas-based Anadarko E & P Co. received 61 violations and one fine totaling $5,000. ___ Online: House Natural Resources Committee: http://naturalresources.house.gov/ ___ Follow Matthew Daly: Twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC

Read the full article →

Reid Hits Back Against GOP Measure Targeting Marginalized Group

February 8, 2012

By ANDREW TAYLOR, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — Republicans are looking to deny child tax credits to undocumented immigrants–refund checks averaging $1,800–in an effort that has roused anger among Hispanics and some Democratic lawmakers. The proposal, which would require people who claim the federal credit to have Social Security numbers to prove they’re legal workers, is being offered as a way to help pay for extending the Social Security tax cut for most American wage-earners. It would trim federal spending by about $10 billion over a decade. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada says the proposal unfairly goes after the children of poor Hispanic workers. Such kids often are U.S. citizens, even when their parents aren’t, because they were born in this country. Says Leticia Miranda, senior policy adviser of the National Council of La Raza: “People who are making close to the minimum wage and are raising children in this country – and we’re asking them to pay for the payroll tax cut?” She says, “It’s outrageous and it’s crazy.” On the other side, Republicans and some Democrats say what’s crazy is even having a debate over whether the government should be cutting checks to people who have sneaked into the country without documents. It’s hard to imagine there isn’t a healthy majority, even in the Democratic-controlled Senate, to stop the practice – if it’s actually brought to a vote. “We have rules about tax credits and benefits, and it seems to me they need to be applied fairly and across the board,” said Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill, who is facing a difficult re-election bid in Missouri. “If there are rules, they need to be enforced. I think it’s just that simple. I don’t think it’s complicated.” Undocumented immigrants have been barred from other refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit for lower-income workers. But a 1997 law enacting the child tax credit doesn’t specifically exclude them from collecting that separate benefit. It was significantly expanded in 2001 and 2009 so that many more people are eligible for refundable credits, though the expanded credit is slated to expire at the end of the year along with other Bush-era tax cuts. “Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming this refundable credit,” Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, said when the House debated the payroll tax cut measure in December. “Illegal immigrants bilked $4.2 billion from the U.S. taxpayers (in 2010). I think that it’s time that we fixed it.” The situation has Democrats in a box. If they fight the GOP effort to cut back payments of the tax credit, they’ll be favoring the delivery of refunds to people who not only don’t owe income taxes but aren’t supposed to be in the country in the first place. What’s more, closing the loophole would raise real money – an estimated $10 billion over 10 years under the approach favored by House Republicans. The Treasury Department says that in the 2010 filing year more than $4 billion in child credit refunds went to 2.3 million people who filed tax returns but didn’t have Social Security numbers proving they were citizens or legal workers. That’s a four-fold increase over five years earlier. On the other side are politically influential Hispanic groups, a key Democratic-friendly constituency. Opponents of tightening eligibility for the child tax credit point out that six of every seven affected families are Hispanic, with an average household income of about $21,000. Tax credits averaging $1,800 per family make a huge difference at such income levels. Hispanics point out that in many instances the tax credit goes to wokers who aren’t citizens but whose children are – because they’ve been born in the country and therefore can have Social Security numbers of their own. They say such children should reap the benefit of the tax credit just like other children in comparable economic circumstances. “I just think the child tax credit is working just fine and there’s no need to punish children,” Sen. Reid said last week. “We’re supposed to try to be helping them.” One option under consideration is to require tax filers to supply a Social Security number for the child when claiming the tax credit instead of requiring that at least one of the parents possess one. That would respond to criticism that the GOP proposal is unfair to the citizen children of undocumented immigrants. “We’re not in favor of fraudulent payments or payments that shouldn’t be made, but we don’t want to create obstacles to supporting low-income families who are trying to care for their children,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “Even though the parent doesn’t have a Social Security number, they could still be entitled under their tax return, for a child tax credit.” Congress needs to find about $160 billion between now and the end of the month to cover the costs of extending through Dec. 31 a Social Security tax cut averaging about $20 a week for 160 million workers, federal unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and unreduced Medicare fees for doctors. All are now due to expire Feb. 29.

Read the full article →

Melissa Richer: How Millennials Are Shaping the Future of Social Entrepreneurship and Technology

February 7, 2012

In 2011, the terms ‘social entrepreneurship’ and ‘social business’ began to make weekly appearances in mainstream media (see recent Huffington Post coverage here , here , and here ). These startups are at the forefront of the ‘new economy.’ They make money by solving social and environmental problems, and they do not fit into the traditional nonprofit or for-profit mold. When I entered the workforce 5 years ago, I mostly heard that my generation was ‘difficult to work with,’ ‘savvy with that social media thing,’ and ‘free-spirited.’ Now people see us differently. In 2011, we were the entrepreneurs, survivors, and ‘ generation sell .’ Oftentimes people ask me about the future of social entrepreneurship. This is because I founded Ayllu , an organization that tracks social businesses in 80+ developing countries and reports on market trends. I tell them that right now social entrepreneurship is a hot trend and there are funders, conferences, university departments and newspaper sections devoted to it. I believe that in the not-too-distant future, social entrepreneurship will become so prevalent that it will no longer be a niche sector. It will simply be part of the new economy that emerges from today’s convalescent markets. In the years ahead, social entrepreneurs will take advantage of innovations in the technology sector. Here are technology-related trends that have major social change potential in 2012 and beyond: Crowd-based Models : Crowd-funding brings people together online, and pools their money to finance a project. It is a big social entrepreneurship trend, which Kiva made famous a few years ago. Now many social entrepreneurs have innovated on this concept. Solar Mosaic makes it possible for anyone to fund community solar installations in places like schools or hospitals. inVenture realized small businesses in developing countries need growth capital, so they created a crowd-investing platform. And One Percent Foundation innovated on the giving circle concept by pooling 1 percent of its members’ income and donating it to charities. In the future, as technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent, social entrepreneurs will move beyond crowd-funding. They will use other crowd-based models to create social change. This trend is already manifesting itself in the mobile technology space. Mobile Technology: Today, nearly 70 percent of people in developing countries have mobile phones. In just a few short years, more than 1 billion people who were formerly ‘off the map’ are on it. This market opportunity is tremendous in terms of size and scale, as are possibilities for social innovation. Social entrepreneurs are building new models: Labor Voices combats human trafficking with a ‘yelp model’ where migrant workers can rate and review their employers anonymously. In developing countries, Medic Mobile uses mobile technology to help rural health workers coordinate with clinics and patients. In Kenya, people use their cell phones like credit cards, and Kopo Kopo helps business owners accept mobile payments from customers. Health Technology: Healthcare is one of the most diverse areas for social entrepreneurship. Lumoback , a mobile healthcare startup, designed a smart phone-powered device that improves posture and chronic back pain. Embrace developed a low-cost baby incubator to save premature infants in the developing world. And BioSense created a device that tests pregnant women for anemia in rural India, and can save thousands of lives each year. These trends are part of the big data and collaborative consumption movements. With so much information at our fingertips, solutions are emerging to analyze and organize information (big data). And thanks to the Internet, online collaboration is creating new kinds of marketplaces (collaborative consumption). In the past 10 years, we humans have become dependent on technology and it’s difficult to navigate life without it. Sometimes it feels as if our devices are in control of us, and not vice versa. But, in the next 10 years technology will become ‘smarter.’ It will adapt to us and become more integrated with our daily activities. Millennials will play a large role in evolving technology to create social end environmental benefits. Social entrepreneurship is our way of addressing the immense global challenges we inherited (see here and here ). We will use it to shift the global economy in a positive direction.

Read the full article →

Journalist Recovers Video Of Arrest After Police Deleted It

February 7, 2012

A Miami journalist has recovered video of police officers arresting him after it was deleted from his camera. The man was covering a police effort to evict Occupy Miami protestors. He plans to file a complaint with the police department and with the United States Department of Justice.

Read the full article →

Bank Loan Rates Could Spike Following Money Market Rules

February 7, 2012

By Karen Brettell NEW YORK, Feb 7 (Reuters) – The cost for banks and other borrowers to raise funds in short-term markets could jump if regulatory proposals for money market funds result in large redemptions in the industry. The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was finalizing rules to stabilize the $2.7 trillion money-market fund sector, including a requirement that funds allow their net asset values to fluctuate. The proposals are vehemently opposed by the industry, which says they will effectively kill the business. “As soon as you introduce a floating NAV (net asset value), demand for the product is going to plummet,” said Mary Beth Fisher, an interest rate strategist at BNP Paribas in New York. “You have no additional security by being in a money market fund.” The new rules are designed to reduce risks of the large funds, which suffered an investor run after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. The run led one large fund’s share value to “break the buck,” which then intensified the crisis, leading to the SEC’s development of the proposed rules in 2009. Fund managers contend that allowing share prices to fluctuate will remove certainty from the investments and increase, rather than reduce, the risk of a loss of investor confidence. Money market funds provide billions in loans to banks through repurchase agreements, commercial paper and other loans. A pullback sparked by investor redemptions or from the funds simply closing down could have large market ripples. Fidelity Investments, the largest money-market fund manager, recently warned regulators that a floating NAV would result in large redemptions, “leading to unintended consequences for the financial markets and U.S. economy.” Shares of Federated Investors, one of the largest money fund managers, fell 3.9 percent on Tuesday on the report. The Pittsburgh-based firm’s Chief Executive Christopher Donahue told the Journal he would sue the SEC if the new rules affect Federated’s ability to do business. European banks were left scrambling for dollar-based funds in the last half of 2011 as money funds withdrew loans, a large factor that led to global central banks coordinating offers of low-cost loans to banks to fill the funding gap. Investors have pulled around $50 billion from money market funds since January 11, according to the Investment Company Institute. That in recent weeks helped increase the cost to finance overnight loans backed by Treasuries in the repurchase agreement market. The cost of overnight repo loans backed by Treasuries traded at around 10 basis points on Thursday after rising to the high 20-basis point area last week. “If there are further fund redemptions, overnight funding for Treasuries will probably go back up,” said Raymond Gilmartin, head of repo trading at Bank of Nova Scotia in New York. A key question is where cash will move if money funds become less attractive. Money funds have won investors who want a guarantee that their money will be returned. Other mutual funds that invest in short-term instruments but do not guarantee the full investment return could gain at least part of the funds. “There’s still a huge amount of demand for short-term liquidity, people will put their money in a T-bill fund instead of a money market fund and not pay the extra fees,” said BNP’s Fisher. Banks, on the other hand, have been reluctant to take large deposits from investors flocking to safety as they need to pay a fee to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp to insure the deposits. An insurance cap of $250,000 per depositor per bank is also scheduled to come into force in December. “It is unclear how much of the ($1.6 trillion) institutional money held in money funds would ‘go elsewhere’,” Barclays Capital analyst Joseph Abate wrote in a recent report. “Banks are not eager to be on the receiving end of all this cash.”

Read the full article →

Google Fiber Rollout Ready To Begin

February 7, 2012

It reportedly suffered a slight delay due to some disagreement with local officials over just how its thousands of miles of wires would be hung, but Google announced today that it’s finally ready to begin the rollout of its Google Fiber network in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri.

Read the full article →

Businesses Accuse Cybersecurity Plan Of Overstepping Bounds

February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON — A developing Senate plan that would bolster the government’s ability to regulate the computer security of companies that run critical industries is drawing strong opposition from businesses that say it goes too far and security experts who believe it should have even more teeth. Legislation set to come out in the days ahead is intended to ensure that computer systems running power plants and other essential parts of the country’s infrastructure are protected from hackers, terrorists or other criminals. The Department of Homeland Security, with input from businesses, would select which companies to regulate; the agency would have the power to require better computer security, according to officials who described the bill. They spoke on condition of anonymity because lawmakers have not finalized all the details. Those are the most contentious parts of legislation designed to boost cybersecurity against the constant attacks that target U.S. government, corporate and personal computer networks and accounts. Authorities are increasingly worried that cybercriminals are trying to take over systems that control the inner workings of water, electrical, nuclear or other power plants. That was the case with the Stuxnet computer worm, which targeted Iran’s nuclear program in 2010, infecting laptops at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. As much as 85 percent of America’s critical infrastructure is owned and operated by private companies The emerging proposal isn’t sitting well with those who believe it gives Homeland Security too much power and those who think it’s too watered down to achieve real security improvements. One issue under debate is how the bill narrowly limits the industries that would be subject to regulation. Summaries of the bill refer to companies with systems “whose disruption could result in the interruption of life-sustaining services, catastrophic economic damage or severe degradation of national security capabilities.” Critics suggest that such limits may make it too difficult for the government to regulate those who need it. There are sharp disagreements over whether Homeland Security is the right department to enforce the rules and whether it can handle the new responsibilities. U.S. officials familiar with the debate said the department would move gradually, taking on higher priority industries first. “The debate taking place in Congress is not whether the government should protect the American people from catastrophic harms caused by cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, but which entity can do that most effectively,” said Jacob Olcott, a senior cybersecurity expert at Good Harbor Consulting. Under the legislation, Homeland Security would not regulate industries that are under the authority of an agency, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with jurisdiction already over cyber issues. “Where the market has worked, and systems are appropriately secure, we don’t interfere,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “But where the market has failed, and critical systems are insecure, the government has a responsibility to step in.” The bill, written largely by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Senate homeland panel, is also notable for what it does not include: a provision that would give the president authority to shut down Internet traffic to compromised Web sites during a national emergency. This `”kill switch” idea was discussed in early drafts, but drew outrage from corporate leaders, privacy advocates and Internet purists who believe cyberspace should remain an untouched digital universe. While the Senate is pulling together one major piece of cybersecurity legislation, the House has several bills that deal with various aspects of the issue. A bill from a House Homeland Security subcommittee doesn’t go as far as the Senate’s in setting the government’s role. Still, it would require DHS to develop cybersecurity standards and work with industry to meet them. “We know voluntary guidelines simply have not worked,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I. “For the industries upon which we most rely, government has a role to work with the private sector on setting security guidelines and ensuring they are followed.” Stewart Baker, a former assistant secretary at Homeland Security, said the government must get involved to force companies to take cybersecurity more seriously. Concerns about federal involvement, he said, belie the fact that computer breaches over the past several years make it clear that hackers and other governments, such as China and Russia, are already inside many industry networks. “They already have governments in their business, just not the U.S.,” said Baker. “For them to say they don’t want this suggests they don’t really understand how bad this problem is.” Industry groups have lobbied against the Senate bill’s regulatory powers and say new mandates will drive up costs without increasing security. They say businesses are trying to secure their networks and need legal protections built into the law so they can share information with authorities without risking antitrust or privacy violations. In a letter to lawmakers this past week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said any additional regulations would be counterproductive and force businesses to shift their focus from security to compliance. Liesyl Franz, a vice president at TechAmerica, which represents about 1,200 companies, said businesses would prefer to work with the government to enhance security rather than face more regulations. She said companies coping with the potential security risks, market consequences, and damage to corporate reputations, are defending against cyberthreats. Senior national security officials were on Capitol Hill last week to talk to senators about the growing cybersecurity threat. After the meeting, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she’s always had a sense of urgency about it, adding, “I hope the briefing gives that same sense of urgency to members to put aside turf battles.” She said senators are reviewing concerns raised by the Chamber about the bill. ___

Read the full article →

Former Bank Of America Employee Picks New Fight With Banking Giant

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — Jackie Ramos, whose 2009 video detailing her termination from Bank of America became a viral hit, is back on YouTube with another bone to pick with the banking giant. Ramos, 26, recently posted a video titled “Bank of America Stole My House!” In the video, she says she lost her home following the death of her four-year-old son’s father, Tim Woods, last April. While the foreclosure process was still underway in mid-December, Ramos said the bank put locks on the home. Unfortunately for Ramos, her name was not on the mortgage. Further muddying the picture, she had already moved out of the Fairburn, Ga., home at the time of Woods’ death. According to Ramos, Woods purchased the home in 2008 after receiving a fixed-rate mortgage from Bank of America. But by the end of 2009, Woods and Ramos began to notice increases in their monthly mortgage payments. Eventually, Ramos said, the bank explained that the extra charges were premiums for a mortgage life insurance policy. According to Ramos, Woods agreed to keep paying for the insurance with the understanding that the policy would cover the balance on his loan in case of death. Ramos said she was listed as the beneficiary on this policy. “I was there when he spoke with Bank of America,” she told the Huffington Post. “They said, ‘Okay, we’ll enter into the paperwork so if anything happens, [the house] will go to her.’” At the time of Woods’ death, Ramos had moved out of the home and begun dating another man. On the night Woods died, Ramos said, Woods confronted her and her boyfriend. “He found out I was dating someone new and he attempted to harm both me and my friend,” Ramos said. Fairburn police told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the shooting occurred during a scuffle over a gun. Authorities had attempted to subdue Woods with a Taser before the gun went off. Police later determined Woods’ death was not considered the result of a “police-involved shooting” because the officer involved in the scuffle did not have possession of the gun, but Ramos says Woods committed suicide. Ramos said the bank then denied the existence of the policy and refused to speak to her because she and Woods had not been married. Woods, Ramos said, had no will and did not designate an executor of his estate. She is not on good terms with his family, who say the house shouldn’t go to her no matter what. She and her son have since moved into a home she purchased in September. In a statement to the Huffington Post, Bank of America declined to comment on Ramos’ case as a matter of policy. “Due to Bank of America’s privacy policy, we have not discussed the Borrowers Protection Plan or the loan with Ms. Ramos, because she is not a borrower on the loan,” said Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens. “The Georgia State Probate court has appointed an Administrator for Mr. Woods’ estate and Bank of America has communicated directly with that Administrator … [we] cannot discuss the specific details of our customers’ benefit requests.” According to Bank of America’s Borrowers Protection Plan , “Suicide or intentionally hurting yourself” are not protected causes of death, nor is “Death that occurred during or as a result of breaking the law.” A former employee of Bank of America, Ramos was fired after taking a stand against what she felt were unfair lending policies. The video she made detailing her experience led to a story on the Huffington Post and an appearance on “The Daily Show.” “You guys stole my home, you guys stole my memories and you guys stole something from my four-year-old,” she says in the new video. “You guys are a bunch of crooks, and I will let everyone know.” Watch the video: Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.

Read the full article →

Executive Accused Of Fraud: Ponzi Scheme Was Costing Him His Health

February 6, 2012

HOUSTON — Attempts to cover up a massive Ponzi scheme alleged to have taken billions from depositors at Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford’s Caribbean bank grew increasingly frantic as federal authorities closed in on the fraud, the financier’s top money man testified Monday. Ultimately, all of the efforts to hide the more than 20-year fraud were futile, James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford’s companies, told jurors during his third day of questioning by prosecutors in Stanford’s fraud trial. “The writing was on the wall,” said Davis, who has pleaded guilty in the case. Prosecutors claim Stanford bilked investors out of more than $7 billion in a massive Ponzi scheme centered on the sales of certificates of deposit, or CDs, from the bank on the island nation of Antigua. Stanford’s attorneys contend the financier was a savvy businessman whose financial empire, headquartered in Houston, was legitimate. They have suggested Davis, who worked 21 years for Stanford, is behind the fraud. Davis, the prosecution’s star witness who began testifying last week, told jurors Monday that by 2007, he wanted to quit working for Stanford, unable to handle the stress. “The fraud that I was participating in was killing me,” he said. Authorities allege Stanford used depositors’ money to operate his businesses, pay for his lavish lifestyle and bribe regulators and auditors. They also say he lied to depositors by telling them their money was being safely invested. Stanford is on trial for 14 counts, including mail and wire fraud, and faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. At the end of 2007, the bank owed depositors $6.6 billion, Davis said, but it had only enough funds to pay back $1.5 billion. New sales of CDs had for years been able to cover withdrawals. In 2008, sales dramatically dropped and customers were withdrawing their CDs in droves, sparked by the Great Recession, he said. By December 2008, the bank had only $88 million in cash. Even as the bank was crashing, Davis said, Stanford was telling the holders of CDs in a December 2008 monthly report that he had put in more than $541 million of his own money into the bank to increase its value to more than $1 billion. He reassured investors that the bank was “strong, safe and fiscally sound,” Davis testified. “How concerned were you becoming?” asked prosecutor William Stellmach. “I was very concerned, probably near emotional and mental extreme stress level concerns,” Davis said. In an effort to hide the fraud, Stanford resorted to creative bookkeeping, Davis testified. Stanford spent $63.5 million for land in Antigua for an ultra-exclusive island resort he had been proposing, Davis said. The financier then inflated the land’s value to $3.2 billion as a part of a proposal to include that with the bank’s assets, he said. By January 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wanted proof of all of the bank’s assets and investments. Davis said by February he falsified documents that showed the bank had $6.3 billion in assets related to real estate and investments in private companies. “It was a lie,” he said. Davis testified that later that month, he threw a computer and thumb drive into a lake at his home in Mississippi in an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence. The evidence was later recovered by authorities. Stanford’s bank and other companies were seized by authorities later in February. Davis pleaded guilty to three fraud and conspiracy charges in 2009 as part of a deal he made with prosecutors in exchange for a possible reduced sentence. Stanford was once considered one of the United States’ wealthiest people, with an estimated net worth of more than $2 billion. He’s been jailed without bond since being indicted in 2009. ___ Follow Juan A. Lozano at http://www.twitter.com/juanlozano70

Read the full article →

Dennis Santiago: Banking 2012: Maneuvering to Survive the Desert Landscape of Zero Interest Rates

February 6, 2012

Maybe that Mayan calendar is right and the world will be ending shortly after the presidential election. You’d certainly think so by the furor of deck chair arranging going on in the banking industry. I’m told the buzz of the 2012 season of meetings is all about “Who’s buying whom?” and “Who’s for sale?” The stage seems set for a round of consolidations that will take America’s 7,500 plus FDIC insured institutions down to a much smaller number. The big will get bigger and consumer choices — and their ability to get decent financial terms — will get fewer. The root problem I hear about over and over is Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP). Simply put, with zero interest rates pushing operating margins down to nothing, the only thing starving bankers have left to do to survive the drought is cannibalize the industry. It’s another sign of the handcuffed wealth of the U.S. economy. And it’s not for lack of money. As I pointed out previously in the article “Investors Stuff Mattresses and Wait for U.S. Economy to Find Direction” , there’s a glut of idled deposits distributed throughout the banking system. But the economics of lending are lacking in vigor. Bankers cope with this in two ways. Some have just abandoned lending and have given in to taking deposits and putting it into low yield government securities. They’ve effectively become conservative mutual funds. Yes that does mean we have a situation where consumers stuff their money into a bank mattress and then the banks in turn stuff another government bonds mattress. Talk about draining Main Street of energy… times two. For all you people who “Moved Your Money,” you might want to ask you banker or credit union if they are playing the “double stuffed mattress” game with your cash. If they are, maybe you need to make noise about moving again. Nothing says that grass-roots activism has to be static. The above “money parking lot” game can buy you time but it’s not an operational business proposition bankers like. Clearly they should not. Other more proactive bankers tenuously attempt to find productive uses for these deposits despite the difficulties of selling services under a cloud of doubt about the future direction of the economy. The “lending engine that could” conversations I hear from these large and small bankers have three distinct themes. Theme One: If there’s a good deal out there, we’re all going to bid on it and compete with as many incentives as we can pile in there to outmaneuver the competition. It is cut throat and it means thinner margins on fewer successful asset deployments. Theme Two: If it’s not a quality deal, we’re not touching it with a 10-foot pole. We just can’t do it. Not with the uncertainty about this economy. This is most true for banks fighting to regain solid footing for the asset quality portion of their CAMELS* ratings. It’s also, by the way, an area where I’m told the old sub-prime mortgage crowd is coming around trying to sell loans to sub-quality commercial and industrial borrowers. The people who laid waste to our mortgage market haven’t gone away. They’re morphing. Well at least they’re no longer unemployed. Is that a good thing? Theme Three: If it’s a big company, forget it. They complain the Fed’s ZIRP — there it is again — means it’s an invitation only game for the 1% club. The implication is that large C&I companies are being driven like sheep into the waiting arms of the cabal on Wall Street by U.S. fiscal policy. When I talk to corporate treasurers about the issue, they pretty much concur. The smaller bankers who live well off the radar screens of Wall Street also complain about one other insult to injury. They complain about role of “ratings” in impeding business. The big Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organizations (NRSRO’s) aka the big ratings agencies — who are viewed as members in good standing of the Wall Street insider’s club — only cover the biggest banks who can afford their services for doing ratings on multi-billion dollar debentures. It simply costs too much for the smaller banks to go “buy” a rating from these companies. It hurts community banks two ways. First, they are sometimes forced to go through a TBTF to issue a standby line of credit (LOC) using their money to pledge to one of their direct clients. So when it comes time to issue an LOC to a corporate borrower, they too often have to send that money over to a big bank that acts as a credit facility manager — with service fees of course — to funnel the money to the bank’s own customer. It raises the cost of the transaction somewhere around 75 to 150 basis points. That’s actually a lot. To make the deal work, the smaller bank eats the cost which, of course, cuts in to operating margin and causes yet more systemic malnutrition. For these smaller banks it can happen for as few as 1 out of 20 deals to as many as all of them. Second, many corporations and funds now have risk management controls that specify that all deposits in financial institutions be insured. This includes super large deposits. The way that works is that the depositor buys a private insurance for the amount beyond the FDIC insured amount. The insurance companies in turn ask for a rating from an NRSRO which the smaller bank won’t have because the deposit size is nowhere near big enough to justify paying for such a rating so they lose the deal to one of the TBTF’s. That effect is very much in evidence when you look at how much deposit accumulation has happened at the big banks versus the smaller ones in the past two years. This is particularly macabre when you consider that in many cases, the smaller institution actually has better safety and soundness properties than the bigger one acting as a conduit or “NRSRO rated” recipient of the large deposit. We know this because other more specialized bank analytics companies that do analysis on the safety and soundness of the bank industry indicate so. IRA is one of those analysis providers. The company delivers ratings indicators on 100% of the active banking industry in a timely fashion for compliance, monitoring and counterparty evaluation purposes. IRA isn’t the only company doing so. There are others. Among IRA’s business niche cohorts, the analysis not only aligns well, the various services have nuances that when taken as a set provide users with far better illustration of the bank’s condition. The banks don’t hire these firms to make ratings. They assess all of them because that’s how you’re actually supposed to analyze an industry channel. It begs the question, if you can make more direct measurements and you don’t, who’s being the fool? Banks do argue that these alternative ratings are very valid because they know the numbers align with their regulatory examination CAMELS ratings. The bank regulators have had their own trouble with relying on NRSRO data by the way. The FDIC mandated that ratings agency data would no longer be used to computing bank insurance assessments last year and rules about stress testing under the Dodd-Frank Act say banks are not to rely on these external ratings going forward either. This, of course, asks the second question, “If bank regulators are in fact shifting to better objective standards to manage down future systemic risk, why are capital markets lagging behind?” So here’s the “think outside the box” finance policy question of the day. What if all those line of credit and large deposit deals relied on direct measurement analytics sources instead, bypassing the need to process LOC’s though an NRSRO rated manager or parking hard-earned deposits in a TBTF. How many basis points could this shave out of the economy’s systemic cost of capital? What would it mean in terms of creating vigor in the 7,000+ smaller banks in this country to be a greater part of America’s economic recovery? Will this help change the direction of discussions when bankers get together from starvation and consolidation towards competition and growth? I think these are questions worthy of the banking and the insurance industry exploring. Not a bad thing for policy makers and candidates to be pondering as well. Clearing the decks for Main Street of unneeded furniture is what I’m trying to explore here. Ultimately this is a search to find a way to bring our industrial system back into sustainable balance. I wrote about this last October in “Economic Recovery Means Learning to Export Unemployment” where I floated the notion that repatriating as little as five-percent (5%) of the U.S. industrial base would go a long way towards getting our corner of the world back to the good side of the systemic tipping point. I mention this in closing because President Obama also made this very point in his State of the Union address. He left it at encouraging business to “think about what you can do.” So I am. *CAMELS ratings are how bank regulators assign safety and soundness ratings to banks. The acronym stands for Capital Adequacy, Asset Quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity and Sensitivity to Market Risk.

Read the full article →

Federal Official: ‘We’ve Got To Stay Focused On Mine Safety’

February 6, 2012

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — If there’s one lasting cultural change Mine Safety and Health Administration Director Joe Main wants to make in both the federal agency and the industry it regulates, it’s ending the cycle of intensity and complacency. After every high-profile disaster, regulators step up their enforcement and most coal operators take a second look at safety. Then, over time, both grow complacent. Until the next disaster. “You look away for a second, you let your guard down for a second, and bad things can happen here,” Main said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We’ve got to stay focused on mine safety. It has to be the priority every minute of every day, and we have to be out there with a find and fix mentality — find it and fix it before it hurts somebody.” When the Sago Mine exploded near Buckhannon, W.Va., in 2006, trapping and killing 12 men, MSHA had a different leader and a shortage of inspectors. It’s since hired and trained hundreds, and it was about to begin retraining them when Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine exploded near Montcoal in 2010, killing 29 men. “You can’t go through these phases where enforcement intensifies and then slacks off. You pay for those things,” Main said. “These past events have happened when there’s been a slacking off, and it takes time to reset the stage.” Though MSHA has been criticized for its handling of Upper Big Branch before the blast, Main insists inspectors used the tools they had and were trying to correct problems. In the year before the blast, MSHA issued more violation orders there than at any other U.S. mine. It shut the mine down 48 times but had to let it reopen when problems were fixed. Main said his agency has made many changes since then, including creating an impact inspection system for mines with a history of violations, and he plans to make more once an audit of MSHA’s performance at Upper Big Branch is completed. He’s also hoping for tougher tools from the three mine-safety bills pending in Congress. MSHA helped craft the one proposed by Rep. George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee. Whatever version ultimately passes, Main wants it to address critical issues such as: giving workers a voice and protecting them when they use it; giving MSHA federal subpoena power in investigations rather than forcing it to rely on state laws; and holding people accountable for criminal conduct. “I do not believe in treating people who are not criminals like criminals,” Main said. “But I do believe that people that engage in that kind of activity need to be dealt with accordingly. And we have to have a law in place that contains that kind of respect.” Ultimately, keeping a mine safe is the operator’s responsibility, and Main said he’s disappointed by those who didn’t get the wakeup call from Upper Big Branch, the nation’s worst coal mining disaster in four decades. “It’s like people passing a wreck on the highway: Just how does that impact folks? And this should have impacted folks bigger,” he said. Even shortly after the tragedy, his inspectors found mines with so much explosive coal dust hanging in the air that they could barely see the cutting machines. “It goes to show we have a serious problem here,” he said. Preliminary data for 2011 show signs of at least short-term improvements: The total number of mining citations and orders were down, and there was progress at 14 mines notified in 2010 that they might be designated potential pattern violators. Main said his agency is also in the process of rewriting the inspectors’ handbook, consolidating and clarifying policies that may be confusing or contradictory “to say exactly what we mean.” That, he said, should help them do their jobs better and make enforcement efforts more consistent.

Read the full article →

Ex-Lehman Brothers Trader: Only On Wall Street Could You ‘Get Paid So Much For Doing So Little’

February 6, 2012

The fallout from the financial crisis has already changed the way much of America views Wall Street. It may also be changing the way the financial industry views itself. After years of huge paychecks and bonuses, financial industry workers are seeing their compensation capped and cut thanks to anxiety surrounding the global economy and oncoming regulations. But when a salary or bonus can serve as evidence of an accomplishment, it’s disappearance can also amount to an erosion of self-worth. “There’s no other industry where you could get paid so much for doing so little,” an ex-trader for Lehman Brothers told New York Magazine as part of a piece about the changing dynamics of Wall Street. You can read New York ‘s entire Wall Street piece here. Though the former Lehman trader may be one of the first Wall Street workers to express that sentiment in print, he’s echoing the views of others. The head of Britain’s top financial watchdog has said that what takes place on Wall Street is largely a “socially useless activity,” according to a 2010 New Yorker report. Some have argued that such high levels of pay create an incentive for bankers to prioritize short-term profits over a firm’s long-term health. Such is the reason for a Dodd-Frank financial reform law that requires firms to “claw back” pay in certain circumstances , like if the deal on which a bonus is predicated turns into a loss in a certain number of years. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve and the author of one of the more controversial measures in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, told New York that Wall Street turned into a place that constantly needed to prove its greater utility . “Finance became a self-justification” he said. Paul Woolley, who founded a center at the London School of Economics that studies “capital market dysfunctionality,” put it even more bluntly to the New Yorker in 2010. “Why on earth should finance be the biggest and most highly paid industry when it’s just a utility, like sewage or gas?” he said. May the jig finally be up? Morgan Stanley capped its cash bonuses at $125,000 for 2011 and its top executives didn’t net any cash bonuses at all, according to The New York Times . At Goldman Sachs, bonus day was like a “bloodbath” one mid-level executive told CNBC; some bankers and traders learned they would be taking home no bonuses at all, while the firm halved the pay of some of its highest-level employees. Yet Wall Street will likely remain a top draw for America’s best and brightest for the foreseeable future. At Bank of America, a company that has struggled since the financial crisis , average overall compensation for an investment banking associate will likely remain in six-figure territory , even after preparations for pay packages an average of 25 percent smaller than last year. And they’ll still likely be making more than workers in many other high-paying professions with more tangible societal benefits. After 10 years of deal-making, a banker will have taken home more than ten times that of a cancer researcher during the same period, according to Bloomberg. Still, James Gorman, the CEO of Morgan Stanley , said earlier this month that employees upset with the drop in their pay need to have a reality check. “If you put your compensation in a one year context to define your overall level of happiness, you’ve got a problem that is bigger than the job,” Gorman told Bloomberg TV.

Read the full article →

McDonald’s Apologizes To Pit Bull Owners

February 6, 2012

McDonald’s took to Twitter on Friday afternoon to say sorry to the latest group to be upset by its policies: pit bull owners . The fast food chain had included “petting a stray pit bull” in a list of things riskier than “trying a new menu item at McDonald’s” in a radio ad for McBites, its new fried chicken entree, angering pit bull owners across the country. More than 8000 fans of the dog breed joined a Facebook group called ” Pit Bulls Against McDonald’s .” McDonald’s, eager to avoid angering rabid fans of pit bulls and popcorn chicken any further, decided to pull the ad. We understand that PR politics are such that McDonald’s had no choice but to apologize; the net benefit of the ad could not possibly have outweighed lost sales and anger on the part of pit bull owners. But all the hullaballoo seems a little extreme. The ad was clearly tongue-in-cheek; it used “pit bull” as a stand-in for any kind of violent dog. Sure, fast food companies have less than spotless food safety records, and the McBite has not been getting good reviews from early tasters . But McBites also can’t bite you. Moreover, the pit bull comparison was just one of four made in the radio ad . It also claims that “shaving your hair just to see what it would like like,” “naming your son Sue” and “giving your friends your Facebook password” are riskier than eating McBites. Listen to the original ad below:

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: SIGIR Reports: Hey, Anybody Know What Happened to the $2 Billion?

February 6, 2012

The latest Quarterly and Semiannual Report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) was released January 30, 2012. What follows are relevant excerpts of some of the more noteworthy contractor related activities. On December 21, a U.S. contractor was sentenced to 3 months confinement followed by 2 years of supervised release for lying to federal agents during the course of an investigation. The agents were investigating a fraud scheme involving the theft and resale of generators in Iraq to various entities, including the U.S. government. When he was initially interviewed in Iraq, he denied any involvement in the fraud scheme. The investigation demonstrated that he had in fact signed fraudulent U.S. documents and received money on several occasions for his part in the scheme. As of December 31, 2011, the Defense and State departments and the US Agency for International Development had reported 88,380 contracting actions, projects, and grants, totaling $40.31 billion in cumulative obligation. As of January 23, 2012, 15,154 employees of U.S.-funded contractors and grantees supported DoD, DoS, USAID, and other U.S. agencies in Iraq. The number of contractor employees declined by 72% since the end of last quarter, dropping from the 53,447 registered as of September 30, 2011. As you would expect, now that the U.S. mission has been handed off to the State Department, the largest number of contractors, 9,228, are working for State, with 3,823 of those being American. The second largest share is working for the U.S. Army, which has a total of 5,118 under contract, with 2,737 of the American. One very interesting point comes towards the end, in the section on oversight. To appreciate this a little trip down memory lane is in order. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) — anyone remember Paul Bremer? — was established in May 2003 to provide for the temporary governance of Iraq. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 created the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) and assigned the CPA full responsibility for managing it. The DFI comprised revenues from Iraqi oil and gas sales, certain remaining Oil for Food deposits, and repatriated national assets. It was used, in part, for Iraq relief and reconstruction efforts. During its almost 14-month governance, the CPA had access to $20.7 billion in DFI funds and directed expenditures of about $14.1 billion. The CPA had $6.6 billion under its control when its mission ended on June 28, 2004. The Government of Iraq OI gave DoD access to about $3 billion of these funds to pay bills for contracts the CPA awarded prior to its dissolution. Most of these funds were deposited into a DFI sub-account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) established for this purpose. SIGIR initiated an audit to determine whether DoD properly accounted for its use of the $2.8 billion deposited into the DFI sub-account at the FRBNY after the CPA dissolved, and $217.7 million in cash that remained in the presidential palace vault when the CPA dissolved. Here is what it found: DoD cannot account for about two-thirds of the approximately $3 billion in DFI funds made available to it by the GOI for making payments on contracts the CPA awarded prior to its dissolution. Most of these funds ($2.8 billion) were held in the DFI sub-account at the FRBNY; the remainder ($217.7 million) was held in the presidential palace vault in Baghdad. FRBNY records show that DoD made about $2.7 billion in payments from the DFI sub-account. However, the FRBNY does not have specifics about the payments or financial documents, such as vendor invoices, to support them. It required only written approval from the GOI to issue payment. Although DoD had responsibility for maintaining documentation to support the full $2.7 billion in expenditures made from the FRBNY subaccount, it could provide SIGIR documentation to support only about $1 billion. Although DoD established internal processes and controls to report sub-account payments to the GOI, the bulk of the records are missing. As a result, SIGIR’s review was limited to the $1 billion in available records. SIGIR examined 15 payments from this group and found most of the key supporting financial documents.

Read the full article →

Records Complicate Newt’s Lobbyist Denial

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says his consulting group never lobbied for clients. But his business hired state and federal lobbyists to work with clients, and some staff left to take lobbying jobs, according to lobbying disclosures and corporate reports. Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation hired a former Georgia lobbyist to help develop business in that state; a former Missouri state agency director who was a registered lobbyist before joining Gingrich’s group; and a Washington lobbyist hired from a firm led by former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, a Gingrich supporter. Gingrich’s center also paved the way for some employees to leave for lobbying jobs, turning their experience with his group into a selling point for clients. One former vice president started his own Washington lobbying firm, attracting clients also represented by Gingrich’s organization. Two other center employees left to manage Washington lobbying operations for trade associations. Gingrich’s consulting business has been the focus of claims by Republican rival Mitt Romney, who paints the former House speaker as a Washington insider who peddled the influence he acquired in Congress to hundreds of corporate clients after he left the House in 1999. Gingrich stressed that he was not lobbying when he created his business and rented space along Washington’s K Street corridor known for its high-dollar lobbying firms. And he’s criticized Romney in the campaign for characterizing him as a lobbyist. The center’s website notes “we do no lobbying for clients” and says the staff hired constitutes “a team of experts in strategic thinking, policy, planning, research, coalition building, training, writing, communications and analysis.” Avoiding the label of Washington lobbyist is a common practice, made even more popular after President Barack Obama vowed to distance his administration from them. The result was a drop in the number of actual registered lobbyists. In Washington, the legal definition of a lobbyist requires certain narrow criteria to be met, including being paid by a client to spend at least 20 percent of the time attempting to influence “the formulation, modification or adoption of federal legislation.” But that leaves out a lot of activity that would fall under a common-sense description of “lobbyist.” Gingrich last year cut ties to his Center for Health Transformation and the Gingrich Group, although he’s still owed between $5 million and $25 million for his share of the business, his financial disclosures show. His group created the center in 2003 to focus on health-related initiatives like improved health care technology, Medicare changes and Obama’s health care overhaul. The center won’t identify its clients, citing confidentiality concerns. The Gingrich Group and the center have acknowledged generating $55 million between 2001 and 2010, serving more than 300 companies and organizations, including $1.65 million from the government-supported mortgage company Freddie Mac. The Associated Press has identified more than 200 companies and associations that paid Gingrich’s group about $42 million since 2003, according to lists of clients and client fees the group posted in the past on its website. Two dozen of the nation’s largest health care companies and businesses with major health-related costs paid Gingrich’s group nearly $21 million during the period, or almost half of the $42 million in client fees identified by the AP. They included pharmaceutical companies like Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline; insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health Group and WellPoint Inc.; hospital networks like Sutter Health and Cancer Treatment Centers of America; medical equipment manufacturers like GE Healthcare and Siemens; health benefit manager MedImpact; and other businesses like Gallup Organization, UPS, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. Six of the major health care companies and Booz Allen Hamilton, a large Washington government contracting and consulting firm, paid more than $1 million each to Gingrich’s group since 2003. Seventeen others paid more than $500,000 each over the period, according to their membership levels identified by the center and the center’s listed annual membership costs. Most of the 24 companies paid the top annual fee of $200,000, which provided the most access to Gingrich through private telephone conference calls, personal appearances, and regular updates and opinions that he offered members on national health issues and legislation. Gingrich’s 2010 tax return shows he earned $2.4 million of his total $3.1 million in income from his various businesses, but he’s declined to show how much of that income came from clients at the Center for Health Transformation and the Gingrich Group. Gingrich was the major draw for businesses paying his center. The Missouri Hospital Association paid $20,000 in 2007, but the money wasn’t for a particular project or purpose, said David Dillon, an association vice president. “When you have the Center for Health Transformation in the biggest city in your state, you want to be engaged,” he said. The Indiana Health Care Association paid $70,000 in 2008 to become a client of Gingrich’s group, which offered regular newsletters, website access, position papers and staff contacts. “The only benefit that we were aware of is that we were able to have Mr. Gingrich as a speaker at our convention,” said Kate Vaulter, an association spokeswoman. Booz Allen Hamilton paid Gingrich’s center to help sponsor health-related events, where Booz Allen consultants spoke and offered position papers on issues, spokesman James Fisher said. Gingrich didn’t work alone. He hired others, including lobbyists, to help serve the clients and develop state projects that Gingrich would later promote as model programs. Robert Egge worked as a Washington lobbyist for J.C. Watts Companies, focusing on Medicare in 2005 before joining Gingrich’s firm as a project director in March of that year. At the center, Egge “worked extensively with the Congress, executive branch and state governments on key policy initiatives related to Alzheimer’s disease, as well as cancer, diabetes and long-term care,” according to a bio produced after he joined the Alzheimer’s Association, where he now works as vice president in the Washington public affairs office. The association became a client of Gingrich’s group in 2010. Wayne Oliver left his chief lobbyist job in 2006 with the Georgia Pharmacy Association, where he worked for 19 years, to join Gingrich’s group. He’s a vice president at the center now working on pharmacy issues and promoting changes at the Food and Drug Administration. But he also has worked on the center’s Georgia Project, one of the state-based initiatives Gingrich’s organization started to promote health care improvements and increased technology. Julie Eckstein led Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services, a cabinet position that required her to register as a state lobbyist before she joined Gingrich’s group in 2007. She worked as a vice president at the Center for Health Transformation, overseeing state projects, including an office in Missouri that she helped create. She left last year to become managing director of health care services at St. Louis-based Guidon Peformance Solutions, another Gingrich group client. Jim Frogue turned nearly six years working at Gingrich’s firm into a new Washington lobbying business. Frogue, who served as a congressional legislative director for two House members before going to work with Gingrich, left the firm in late 2010 to start his own lobbying business, FrogueClark. His Washington office is in the same K Street building as the Center for Health Transformation. Some of Frogue’s first lobbying clients were health care reimbursement company Qmedtrix Systems and pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, who also were clients of Gingrich’s group. Frogue said he wasn’t aware of anyone who lobbied before or during their time at Gingrich’s center. “As far as I know, nobody was lobbying,” Frogue said in a telephone interview while campaigning for Gingrich last week. He joined a number of other Washington lobbyists in December for a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for Gingrich’s campaign. Jill Randolph left her job with Gingrich’s group in 2007 to run Washington lobbying efforts for the American Benefits Council and to manage the political action committee for the trade association representing employee benefit programs. Randolph, a project director at Gingrich’s firm, was hired by the American Benefits Council to “draw upon her extensive legislative experience,” according to the 2007 news release announcing her hiring. ___ Associated Press writer Ray Henry in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Adam Hanft: Capitalist Porn – Behind the Fetishization of Super Bowl Commercials

February 6, 2012

Just as the marketing of Christmas begins around Columbus Day, each year the Super Bowl commercial frenzy muscles onto the scene earlier and earlier, and extends beyond the final scrimmage. In fact, a Super Bowl commercial is no longer a mere message, it is a complex and prismatic marketing campaign that, of course, uses social media to create anticipation and start a “conversation” — as the brand mavens call it — with consumers. If “advertising is dead,” like many say, then the two weeks before the Super Bowl are the kind of mortality that American manufacturing would like to experience. We’ve reached the point where these commercials have transcended their conventional job — which is to sell a product. They have largely become the product itself; Super Bowl ads have actually become “brands” — self-contained economies that require their own marketing and PR strategies. You can image the meetings, the PowerPoints, the Keurig-fueled debates about how soon before the game to release the commercial, exactly what the long-form version of the spot should be, and how to leverage the compliant media to drive YouTube viewcos and Twitter conversations. As of a couple of hours before the game, more than 11.5 million people had seen Matthew Broderick in ” Matthew’s Day Off “, the reborn Bueller in Honda’s commercial launching the new 2012 CR-V. Which means that the millions who see the spot will be watching an old friend in a new context, and paying no less attention to it — and perhaps more — had it not been previewed. Much of the commentary around the apotheosis of the Super Bowl commercial is driven by the same argument we’ve been hearing for a while. That our culture is fragmented, our media universe splintered, and we hunger for those moments of rare communal focus. Megan Garber put it nicely on the Atlantic’s blog yesterday, noting that the simultaneous viewing experience offers the “warmth of assumed connection that convened attention can confer. I am watching Matthew Broderick as 110,999,999 other people do. There is something epic — and rare — about that.” But I think there’s something else operating here. Why would TV advertising for the game, a constructed manipulation that’s clearly designed to coerce us into buying “stuff we don’t need” — as the conventional meme used to go — rise to level of honor and exaltation, winning such intense and prolonged attention? And why would millions of people — “consumers” or “end users,” as marketers call them — willingly and happily become unpaid workers for billion-dollar corporations by tweeting and Facebooking and participating in polls and surveys about the advertising? The 99% aren’t protesting, they are acting as useful idiots — and no, Lenin didn’t invent that phrase — for the 1%. There are a number of interlocking reasons for this, and Megan Garber’s point that we cherish the rare communal connection, is just one of them. At the salesy center of our national obsession with Super Bowl commercials is that we are all marketers now. After all, we’re all desperately concerned with our personal brands, and how we manage them on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. So we enjoy analyzing the black magic of commercials, because we’re all part of this meta-branding game. We no longer resent being sold stuff. We’re as much the manipulators as the manipulated. We’re fascinated by persuasion. Soon, everyone will be working on their Klout score, or some equivalent measure of personal, yet commercial success. There’s yet another reason why we are obsessed with Super Bowl commercials. They’re more interesting than the average TV spot, and hence we’re more interested — a communications tautology. It is precisely because viewers are focused on them that advertisers can get away with commercials that require more intense concentration. Super Bowl commercials can unfold more languidly, can use more complex story-telling techniques, can inject jarring elements of non-linearity and can be more subtle and filmic. We’re expecting that level of richness. The rest of the year, when we’re emailing and texting and Words-With-Friending, and we’re befogged by clashing inputs, we don’t have the attention span or patience to watch commercials unfold. It also helps that so many people have seen the commercials before, so they can focus on some of the small details that otherwise be overlooked. There are so many tiny references to the original movie in the Ferris Bueller take-off that MTV has published an entire skeleton key to them. If you look at the survey data, Americans have lost faith in our institutions of power, from government to business to media. We say corporations have too much money and put their own interests first. We also claim we don’t trust advertising or that we make buying decisions based on it. Recognizing that, advertisers are canny enough to recognize their own vulnerabilities. Last year, Hulu’s Super Bowl advertising described the company as an “Evil plot to destroy the world.” This year, they called themselves an ” eviler plot .” So we’ll allow ourselves to be pawns in the game, as long as we’re aware of what’s happening to us, and the companies who are selling to us continue let us judge them. That’s a reciprocal deal every one of the Fortune 500 will take, any day. Especially on Super Bowl Sunday.

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: Learn to Trust Your Gut

February 6, 2012

This post was co-authored with my colleague Holly Newman. Have you ever questioned the guidance of a GPS navigation system? The calm and definitive voice tells you to turn right — but your knowledge of the area makes you want to veer left. Now you have to choose: Should you trust the electronic authority, or trust your own expertise? In business today, many situations cause us to question authoritative voices : A manager asks you to spend time on a drawn-out analytical project that you know will produce little value; a customer insists on a delivery schedule that is likely to produce inventory gaps; a client asks for shortsighted solutions when you know that alternate approaches will produce more significant, long term results. All of these situations present a choice between following a prescribed path, or your own instincts. It’s a tough choice, because most of us are programmed from an early age to defer to authority even if we don’t understand or agree with the instructions. As a result, we tend to disregard our internal compass and follow along, even when the data tells us otherwise. For example, most people do not question a physician’s diagnosis. Yet studies of autopsies have shown that doctors misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time. Not long ago we talked with a CEO who was frustrated by this pattern of deference. Despite his numerous communications about empowerment, people throughout his organization rarely raised questions or challenged their bosses about the nature of their work. What this CEO didn’t fully understand is that empowerment to challenge authority is not something simply granted from above; it also needs to be grasped from below. People have to empower themselves — which requires a significant psychological and emotional shift contrary to most people’s upbringing. So how can you counter your conditioning and question authority? Here are some ways to start: Stop and listen to your inner voice. Give yourself a moment to take a deep breath and consider what is going on. Ask yourself, “Are there other ways to approach this task or assignment?” Do your instincts and experience suggest alternatives to doing what you’ve been told? Is there data to support your position or is it just a hunch? Constructively question. If you think that doing things another way would make a material difference, talk to your boss (or customer or client). Why do we do it this way? Would you be open to different ways? What would be the payoff and the risk? Can we experiment with an alternative? Would it be worth doing some further analysis? If the result of this dialogue is permission to proceed, that’s great. If not, you might consider whether you’ve picked the right battle or presented your case effectively. You also could consider whether you have the courage to change course anyway and deal with the consequences later. In some cases it’s better to ask for forgiveness rather than beg for permission. Reflect. Finally, no matter what you’ve done, take some time to reflect on the experience. Remember the sensations and triggers that prompted you to push back against authority. How did it feel? What thoughts crossed your mind? Then, think about how you proceeded. What can you learn from the situation? How might you handle it differently in the future? When trusting your instincts, often you’ll make the right choice, and at other times you won’t. But if you keep at it, you’ll learn to more accurately read your internal compass and come up with effective means to act on it. But if you don’t empower yourself to do this, who will? How do you access the expert within you? Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online .

Read the full article →

Cutest Super Bowl Ad?

February 6, 2012

Let’s face it. Selling financial solutions during a Super Bowl is far from easy. But E-Trade manages to capture our spirit and laughter with its clever ad. The baby reassures a new dad about planning for his daughter’s future with E*Trade Financial Consultants. His friend Bobby stops by for an unexpected surprise visit, too and even jokes he’s speed dating in the nursery. Even if finance isn’t your thing, the voice over and the hilarious expressions from this adorable baby make it well worth watching. Check out some reactions to the ad from Twitter. CLICK HERE to see the rest of the 2012 Super Bowl commercials as well as all of the best, worst and most memorable from years past. For years , viewers have tuned into the NFL’s Super Bowl as much to see what the advertisers roll out as how the two teams vying for the sport’s top prize perform. This year is no different. Each time that NBC cuts away from Super Bowl XLVI between the New York Giants and New England Patriots a hush will come over most Super Bowl parties as everyone — and not just the diehard sports fans with a rooting (or betting) interest — focuses entirely on the ads. While iconic Super Bowl commercials like Apple’s ’1984′ and Coke’s ad starring Mean Joe Greene will be remembered so many more are soon forgotten or, even worse, ridiculed as super fails. How does this Super Bowl ad stack up?

Read the full article →

Google Makes Huge Grab

February 5, 2012

Google has pulled off a coup by hiring an Apple senior director of product integrity for a secret project, VentureBeat has learned.

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: Showdown for the Banks, Showtime for Obama

February 5, 2012

The proposed $25 billion “settlement” of the mortgage servicing mess, scheduled to be made public any moment, must be a way station to much larger reductions of mortgage principal for underwater homeowners and much more serious consequences for the banks and their allies whose fraudulent actions created the mortgage meltdown. If the settlement turns out to be the final installment of relief for homeowners, it will be a colossal failure, both as economics and as justice. However, while the settlement talks among state AGs, the Obama administration and bankers were in their final phase last week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a massive lawsuit against three of the largest players, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase. This bodes well for further enforcement actions, settlement or no settlement. The lawsuit minces no words in alleging that the big banks fraudulently used the electronic system known as MERS to “evade county recording fees, avoid the need to publicly record mortgage transfers and facilitate the rapid sale and securitization of mortgages en masse.” According to Schneiderman, the illegal scheme saved banks $2 billion directly in recording fees, and the banks could be subject to much more money in fines. Schneiderman’s suit also seeks to block the ability of the banks to foreclose on some 70 million properties held in the name of MERS. Much of this same fraudulent misconduct is also the subject of the proposed settlement talks. Schneiderman signed onto the talks, and to a newly activated federal task force on criminal wrongdoing in mortgage securitization. So how can he file this case without blowing up the talks? The answer is that the suit does blow up the wrong kind of settlement — one that would protect the banks from further civil and criminal liability. In fact, the settlement now taking final shape would only narrowly insulate banks from federal and state litigation directly related to fake robo-signing. Nothing in it shelters the banks from other liability, such as fraudulently claiming that trust documents contained mortgage notes that in fact weren’t there. The proof of the pudding is that Schneiderman’s case went forward, and there will be more such cases. Why would the banks still agree to a settlement? Because the Frankenstein system that they created is such a mess that they need government help in cleaning it up. $25 billion is a small price to pay for the ability to restore a system that clearly establishes titles and liens — and the right to foreclose. The question is whether it is too small a price to pay, whether the government is giving up leverage that it could use to extract a much larger settlement, and whether the result will be major principal write-downs — or expedited foreclosures. Unfortunately, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan muddied the waters in a press call on Saturday, when he bragged that the settlement would be bigger than the $20-25 billion previously reported, but that much of the cost would be borne substantially by the investors who bought the subprime securities created by the banks. While some of these investors are hedge funds speculating in depressed paper, others are pension funds that bought the bonds in good faith based on the very misrepresentations that leave the banks open to prosecution. As Senator Sherrod Brown has previously warned, it would be a travesty to whack taxpayers once in their capacity as workers and homeowners, and a second time as the value of their pensions takes a hit. At the same time, it is reasonable that the holders of the bonds be part of settlement discussions. These securities are already worth far less than their book value. The market has discounted them, based on the high mortgage default rates. A settlement that allowed millions of homeowners to stay in their homes and reversed the collapse in housing prices would be good for all concerned, including the pension funds. But while the penalties on the banks that caused the calamity should be mandatory, those who got stuck with the bonds should be at the write-down negotiations in a voluntary capacity. The risk is that banks will get off too easy. The Treasury’s prime goal all along has been to prevent the bank balance sheets from taking too big a hit. Others in the administration, however, seem to belatedly recognize that much deeper mortgage relief should take priority. We will soon learn two crucial things. First, will the deal be a sellout — as some fear — or a down-payment? Will it give banks any protection except from the narrowest litigation related directly to robo-signing? Will it leave prosecutors free to pursue all the other illegalities that have marked the entire mortgage meltdown? And will the state AGs and the federal agencies pursue other civil and criminal cases that lead to a much larger set of fines that can be used for mortgage relief, more proportional to the damage done by the banks? There are those who think that the administration has been so in the pocket of the big banks until now that any state AG who collaborates is by definition tainted. There are others who admire the independence and gumption of the AGs who blocked earlier versions of the settlement, and who look to them to lead. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of “The American Prospect” and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is “A Presidency in Peril.”

Read the full article →

Chicago College Offers Class On Occupy Movement

February 5, 2012

CHICAGO — A Chicago college is offering a class on the Occupy movement. Thirty-two undergraduate students are enrolled at Roosevelt University’s “Occupy Everywhere” class. It’s a three-credit political science course that looks at the movement that started last summer near New York City’s Wall Street and spread nationwide. Leaders from the Chicago movement may present guest lectures. Professor Jeff Edwards studies social movements. He says the Occupy movement has been unfolding before students and the class is a good opportunity for them. He says they are reading a range of analysis on the movement concerned with corporate greed and the division of wealth. ___

Read the full article →

Car Prices Expected To Go Up If Economy Improves

February 5, 2012

LAS VEGAS — Car buyers will likely pay more for new and used cars this year as the economy improves. That’s according to the National Automobile Dealers Association, which predicts the average price of a new car will rise 6 percent to $30,000. Used prices will jump as much as 8 percent for pickups and SUVs. The average price of a used small car, like the Honda Civic, will increase 1 percent to $9,475. More people are expected to splurge on new luxury cars as the economy improves. By contrast, used cars are in tight supply because so few people bought cars during the recession. NADA chief economist Paul Taylor expects U.S. vehicle sales to rise 9 percent to 13.9 million this year. New products and low interest rates should help boost sales.

Read the full article →

GM Dealerships Getting Snazzier Showrooms

February 5, 2012

LAS VEGAS — General Motors Co. said Saturday that most of its 4,400 U.S. dealers have agreed to upgrade their showrooms over the next four years. The upgrades include new signs, more modern interiors and lounges with free Wi-Fi. In some cases, dealers might also open cafes or salons. The company announced its plans at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas. GM said 3,400 dealers have agreed to upgrades, and 1,000 have been completed. GM said it also plans to give dealerships more sales and service training and encourage them to do more online marketing. If they meet all the upgraded standards, they’ll receive quarterly payments, spokesman Tom Henderson said. Henderson said 36 percent of GM’s stores were built before 1970. “We’re investing in our retail network because today’s new-vehicle customer expects a shopping experience to match the character of the brand they’re considering,” said GM North America President Mark Reuss. But some dealers question the costs, which can approach $1 million per dealer. They say the expense would be particularly difficult for smaller dealers. The National Automobile Dealers Association released a study Saturday recommending that auto companies better explain the need for the upgrades. It also suggests that costs could be lowered if discounts were negotiated with construction companies or if dealers could use different, but comparable, materials. The association also said companies and dealers need to jointly research and determine future trends that could affect dealerships. Dealers might be able to have smaller properties with fewer cars on their lots as people increasingly shop for and order cars online, for example. The study also suggested that as car quality improves, dealers might need fewer service bays or put them on different sites. “The world is changing,” said Glenn Mercer, an independent automotive analyst hired by the association to do the study, which polled 75 dealers, automakers and buyers. Timothy Kool, who owns two GM dealerships in southwest Michigan, said GM is evaluating his dealerships and deciding whether he can keep the floor tile he installed nine years ago. Though the tile is the right color, its dimensions don’t meet GM’s specifications for upgraded facilities. “It’s frustrating,” Kool said. “There’s not one bit of evidence that because my tile is the same as other dealerships, my sales will improve.” GM isn’t the only carmaker asking dealers to upgrade their facilities. Ford Motor Co. said last week that 75 of its Lincoln dealers have already done major renovations of their facilities, and more have agreed to future upgrades.

Read the full article →

10 Retailers With The Most Sales Worldwide

February 5, 2012

Regardless of the number of mom and pops around the world, a small number of retailers continue to dominate the industry as a whole. Of the top 250 global retailers in 2010, 10 alone accounted for 29.4 percent of the all sales, according to a new report from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and STORES Media . All together, sales for the world’s top 250 retailers were up 5.9 percent in 2010, compared to just 1.2 percent the year before, the report found. Whether an individual retailer thrives or dies still seems largely based on the individual outlet. Take Home Depot, coming in at eighth in sales, which plans to hire 70,000 additional workers to cover expected increased demand this spring. That’s more than can be said for Kmart and Sears, which announced they would be closing 100 to 120 stores this year due to revenue shortages. Yet larger economic forces still play some role in retail trends. In the U.S., where consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of the economy, 2011 saw signs of momentum. Despite shopping over the holiday shopping not providing the boost many expected , sales experienced the largest percentage increase since 1999 . Europe has not been so fortunate as of late. In the face of a sovereign debt crisis that threatens the very existence of its currency, retail sales on the continent have been sluggish . Even so, Europe-based retailers like France’s Carrefour and the U.K.’s Tesco remained among the top 10 strongest retailers in 2010, according to Deloitte’s report . Here are the top 10 retailers with the most sales in 2010, according to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and STORES Media .

Read the full article →

China’s Premier, Wen Jiabao, Stresses Importance Of Helping Europe

February 5, 2012

BEIJING, Feb 5 (Reuters) – China has a stake in helping the euro zone countries get through their debt crisis, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said in comments published on Sunday, pointing to Europe’s importance as an export market and as a source of technology. Wen urged sceptical Chinese citizens to understand that supporting Europe was in their own benefit, the official Xinhua news agency reported. “Now Europe is facing a debt crisis and we must consider relations with Europe strategically to protect our national interests,” Wen said while visiting the export-dependent southern Chinese province of Guangdong on Tuesday, said Xinhua. “On the one hand, our biggest export market is Europe,” said Wen. “On the other hand, Europe is our biggest source for importing technology. From this perspective, helping to stabilise European markets in fact amounts to helping ourselves. We must make all quarters of society understand this point.”

Read the full article →

Should Utilities Be Cheering For Clean Air Rules?

February 5, 2012

NEW YORK — Instead of complaining about clean air rules, maybe utilities should cheer them. Sometimes, the rules lead to big gains. First Energy, a utility based in Ohio, got such a boost Thursday, a week after the company announced it would close six coal-fired plants, blaming new federal rules aimed at slowing emissions of mercury and other toxins. Without these plants, electricity prices in parts of Ohio dominated by First Energy are expected to nearly double at a power auction scheduled for May. The reason: There will now be a smaller fleet of power plants available to meet potential power needs. This smaller supply means the price to coax companies like First Energy to make their plants available will rise. Julien Dumoulin-Smith, an analyst at UBS, predicted rates would rise from $126 for every megawatt available per day to $200. For the 8,000 megawatts of power plant capacity owned by First Energy in the region, that would be an extra $216 million for the year covered by the auction. Jonathan Arnold, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, said there’s a chance prices could approach $500, which would be an enormous windfall for First Energy. First Energy shares rose 3.3 percent Thursday on a day in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell slightly. Electric utilities have complained about a raft of new and tightening environmental standards. They argue that the rules are too stringent and that utilities are not being allowed enough time to prepare for them The rules address several environmental issues: Emissions of toxins harmful to human health, pollutants that lead to smog and acid rain, the amount of water used to cool plants and disposal of power plant waste products. Utilities argue that the cost of complying with the rules is too high, that electric power supplies could be constrained in certain regions and that electricity bills will rise. What they don’t generally say, however, is that the rules can lead to higher earnings in some cases. Electric utilities are regulated differently in every state, so the way utilities can benefit differs too. Here’s how: _ In states where power prices are set by market forces, fewer plants means lower electricity supply, and higher prices. Companies that have plants that comply with the new rules stand to benefit from higher prices. First Energy has nuclear and modernized coal plants that meet the new standards. _ In states that are regulated, utilities have to ask public utilities commissions for permission to install new equipment or build new plants. But the utilities are allowed to earn a higher return on these big-ticket investments than they are for selling power to customers. To the extent that the new environmental regulations allow regulated utilities to build new equipment, they will likely lead to higher earnings. But some companies will suffer. For example, utilities in unregulated states that have to pay for upgrades themselves and cannot benefit from higher prices won’t be able to offset the cost of the equipment. Similarly, if state regulators refuse to allow utilities in their state to pass the cost of the upgrades or new plants to customers, those companies could suffer too. The industry also argues that higher prices could also lead to lower power demand and profit. First Energy chose to close plants that likely would have been unable to operate under the new rules on toxins. These plants are generally older and inefficient, so installing emissions control equipment would have cost the company too much money. These plants were already seldom used, so by closing them the company does not stand to lose much revenue from the small amount of power they generated. But in the markets First Energy operates, plants earn money two ways: by selling power, and by making power plants available for use during peak periods, even if they are never actually needed. With the closure of four plants in Ohio, there will be less power available to meet demand. That is expected to drive prices for capacity higher. “First Energy’s nuclear plants and baseload coal plants with environmental controls are the primary beneficiaries of the EPA rules,” says Hugh Wynne, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein. Power prices have been driven lower in recent years by low natural gas prices, which in many markets set the price of electricity. Because of this, prices for capacity have become more important to company earnings. Customers in northern Ohio will pay higher prices than they otherwise would have in the coming years. The final prices they pay, however, will depend on several other factors, including the price of coal, the price of natural gas, and power demand.

Read the full article →