money

Dan Solin: Rich and Poor Serve Their Wall Street Masters

January 26, 2011

I am often accused of being too hard on brokers (usually by brokers!). They say I cherry pick bad portfolios and there are many “hard working, honest brokers” who do the right thing for their clients. That has some surface appeal and I used to believe it. I no longer do. I have reviewed thousands of portfolios sent to me by readers of my books and blogs. I have yet to see a globally diversified portfolio in an appropriate asset allocation, invested solely in low cost, high quality, stock and bond index funds, exchange traded funds or passively managed funds. Not one! I also regularly review findings (misnamed “awards”) issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) which has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between investors and their brokers. In last week’s blog , I wrote about the experience of Joanne Bohnke, a 74-year-old widow of modest means, who was harmed by the misconduct of her broker. She got partial recompense, which is rare for investors, since these panels tend to either side totally with the securities industry or award only a fraction of the damages suffered by the investor. Wealthy investors fare even worse, both with their brokers and with FINRA arbitration panels. Lawyers for the broker brand the wealthy as “sophisticated investors”, implying that their financial success in their business life made them fair game for the machinations of their broker. The panels usually buy this defense and rarely make any meaningful awards in these cases. For this reason, my curiosity was piqued by an award (Case Number: 08-04276) in an arbitration brought by James D. Murphy, a 61-year-old Florida retiree, against Salomon Smith Barney. The panel awarded Mr. Murphy $1,042,986.22, plus interest. This is a big number for a FINRA award. According to Robert Savage, Tampa based counsel for Mr. Murphy, his client had net losses in his portfolio of almost $2.3 million, representing a significant portion of his initial investment of $4 million. Mr. Murphy had been a conservative investor, with a portfolio consisting almost exclusively of municipal bonds, which he held to maturity. His broker persuaded him to use these bonds as collateral, and buy stocks on margin with the proceeds. According to the Statement of Claim, the activity in Mr. Murphy’s account was stunning. He started with an average equity in his account of $3.6 million in 2003 and ended with an average equity of $1.3 million in 2008. During this time period, his broker turned over his account thirty times, racked up a whopping $807,301 in margin interest and (according to Mr. Savage) $500,000 in commissions. When I talk about the transfer of wealth from you to your broker, this is precisely what I have in mind. On an account with an average equity of $3.6 million, the brokerage firm gained $1.3 million (in commissions and margin interest) for “managing” this portfolio. Mr. Murphy’s average equity decreased from $3.6 million to $1.3 million during this period. Viewed in context, the award of the FINRA tribunal fits into a familiar pattern. The panel simply required the brokerage firm to return most of the gains it made from its wrongful conduct. It should have awarded what are known as “well managed account damages”, which is the difference in the account as managed and what it would have been if the account had been invested in a globally diversified portfolio of low cost stock and bond index funds, in an appropriate asset allocation for Mr. Murphy (or it could have used other appropriate benchmark investments). There are no circumstances which would justify the excessive trading and margin interest in this account. It would be unsuitable for any investor, except a day trader. I ran some numbers which are interesting. I assumed the right asset allocation for Mr. Murphy was 60% stocks and 40% bonds, which gives the broker the benefit of the doubt since it is probably too aggressive for someone Mr. Murphy’s age. I used an initial investment of $3.6 million in 2003 and computed the value of the portfolio on December 31, 2008, using a passively managed portfolio of stock and bond funds. The ending value was $5,051,660! The panel should have done a similar calculation and made an award that would have compensated Mr. Murphy for his real losses. In addition, since there is no justification for this amount of margin (or any margin) or for the excessive trading in this account, the panel should have assessed punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and all costs against Salomon Smith Barney. Instead, it denied Murphy’s request for attorneys’ fees and for punitive damages. In a final blow, the panel assessed Mr. Murphy $15,300 in hearing fees. It assessed the same amount against Salomon Smith Barney. Mr. Savage stated there was no settlement offer in this case. I am not surprised. There is no incentive to settle when you are confident you will either prevail at the hearing or, at worst, have to give up just a portion of your ill-gotten gains. Whether you are rich or poor, you need to understand the present system is set up to transfer your money from your pocket to the coffers of your brokerage firm. They have closed the loop with the cozy FINRA mandatory arbitration scheme. No matter how bad the conduct of your broker, if you recover at all, it will likely be for a small portion of your losses, which will be further reduced by attorneys’ fees. A corporate representative for the brokerage firm would not respond to questions concerning the case. His comment was limited to noting “respectful disagreement” with the award. He should have been thrilled with it. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Artisanal Ice Cream Makers To Sit With First Lady At State Of The Union

January 25, 2011

Joining a host of guests invited to sit with the first lady for tonight’s State of the Union address are Kendra Baker and Zachary Davis, who opened Penny Ice Creamery , an artisanal ice cream shop in Santa Cruz, CA, with the help of a $250,000 Recovery Act SBA loan. Baker and Davis posted an open thank-you in the form of a a YouTube video back in October that got the attention of the White House, and in November, Vice President Biden personally called them to thank them for the video and wish them luck with their shop. From the White House’s release on the first lady’s State of the Union guests: Business partners Kendra Baker and Zachary Davis had a dream of opening an organic, homemade ice cream shop in Santa Cruz, California, but had trouble finding a lender that would help finance their dream. With the help of a Recovery Act SBA loan of $250,000, Kendra and Zack were able open the doors to The Penny Ice Creamery in August 2010. The SBA Recovery Act funding allowed them to not only open the shop, but also to employ eleven people, purchase American-made equipment, and to hire nearly twenty local businesses to design and renovate the space. Kendra and Zack were so thankful for the financing help, that they posted a video on YouTube thanking the Administration and Members of Congress for their Recovery Act SBA loan. As a result of the video, the Vice President called them in November 2010 to thank them for the video and wish them good luck. Unlike most ice cream shops, Penny Ice doesn’t buy pre-made bases, which means they have to pasteurize their homemade base in-house. In a recent interview with Civil Eats , Baker explained the detailed process: In order to make your ice cream from scratch, you have to pasteurize your base, so that’s kind of the step that most people don’t do. They buy a pre-made base from a large distributor and they are adding flavor to it. When we were developing this business plan we wanted to have complete control over our recipes and what went into our product. Any time you create an ice cream base it has to be pasteurized, that’s the California Department of Food & Agriculture law. So we had to create a creamer, which is essentially the micro version of what you would find at a large milk production facility. We had to purchase a pasteurizer that fits our production cycle, which is seven to 15 gallons, because we make everything in really small batches. The process for that is you have to bring up the base to a minimum of 155 degrees with an airspace temperature of five degrees above that. We have to hold it for 30 minutes after which you draw your product and pull it down to below 40 degrees. Our production cycle is actually a two day process. There is a cooling and an aging period, because ice cream is actually enhanced when it is allowed to sit for about 24 hours. The next day you spin it and then it goes through a hardening period where it needs to go into a deep freezer. After that we can start to temper it, which is a softening of the ice cream, before we actually serve it. So it’s a lengthy process. They also discussed the work involved in starting up, and their November call from the White house: ZD: …I’m a firm believer in the American dream and I want everyone to believe that anything is possible. It’s not to say it’s not a lot of work. We put in over two years now, putting this together, just the loan part itself was over six months of extremely frequent back and forth to the bank giving them all the information they needed, proving ourselves. It’s not like we just said, “Oh, we’re going to go get an SBA loan” and walked into the bank and they gave us the money. There’s work, it’s all real work. KB: We had no idea what type of response we would get and we never anticipated that we would actually get a call from the White House…that was pretty incredible. Penny Ice Creamery’s YouTube thank-you video :

Read the full article →

William Meers: Is Swiss Banking Still the Way to Go for Private Banking?

January 23, 2011

The complex financial world of Swiss Banking is far too extensive to examine in a brief article such as this one, however it is possible to introduce a few ideas, and render a few misconceptions regarding this misunderstood world redundant. The mere mention of the words ‘Swiss Banking’ often conjures images of James Bond, and Bond Villains, luxurious lifestyles and mafia bosses stepping off private yachts with suitcases full of pristine condition 100 bills ready to be left in an anonymous account with a lengthy number. If this is what springs to mind your vision of Swiss Banking is far removed and detached entirely from reality as, contrary to what Hollywood may tell you, Swiss Banking and the entire world of offshore banking is not a haven for the rich and it is not a place to take your criminal activity. To fully explain what the world of Swiss Banking entails it is necessary to understand certain concepts such as ‘offshore banking’, ‘offshore bank account’, ‘tax haven’ and more relevant terms such as OFC and IFC. I will begin this brief overview by explaining these concepts in the simplest possible way before offering a brief, but balanced, view as to what Swiss Banking actually is, and how it works. Concepts such as offshore bank accounts are often, unreasonably, associated with criminal activity and tax evasion — and tax havens as being the location where this activity takes place and is facilitated. This is an oversimplified gross misrepresentation of the truth in which the offshore banking world actually takes its place as fully integrated in the global economy. An offshore bank account is simply a bank account which is based in a different jurisdiction to where you, as an individual or entity, legally reside. No more — no less. A tax haven is simply a location which has lower tax rates for foreign investors than would be available in their domestic jurisdiction — and entices investment overseas. These definitions are oversimplified for the purpose of facilitating understanding, but to illustrate how complex the issue is, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has not been able to produce a definition as to what a tax haven actually is. The idea behind them is that by offering zero or low tax to foreign investors, they can encourage investment from a foreign jurisdiction, which obviously has implications for another country. It may surprise you to learn that every country does this — the USA for example offers several capital gains and investment tax relief benefits that, by traditional definitions, makes it the world’s largest tax haven. The entire concept of a tax haven is, however, over-simplistic and implies that tax evasion or avoidance is the only reason to move investment money to an alternative jurisdiction. Again this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality where there are a number of benefits and investment specialists who work to make an individual or corporation’s investment work for them. The terms OFC (Offshore Financial Center) and IFC (International Financial Center) are becoming more popular and are, perhaps, a more appropriate label for a complex and diverse series of financial services. Why then, would one open an account with a Swiss Bank? The answer depends on one’s individual or corporate circumstances. Swiss Banking offers a wide range of services, but as a rule those who benefit will be on the wealthier side of society, but this is not limited to individuals. Nearly all multinational companies have offices, and are often focused in areas generally considered ‘tax havens’. There is no minimum limit, but as services are often fee and commission based and structures such as trusts require set up and maintenance fees, an individual being required to be worth over U$1 million is common. Businesses are usually only worth moving offshore if profits of U$100,000 are being made annually, while opening an offshore bank account is usually not worthwhile for less than U$100,000. However, for these, not inconsiderable, sums of money there are certain benefits such as tax benefits due to PTRs (Preferential Tax Regimes) in certain cases and in the case of Switzerland if you become a legalized resident. However Ta x Benefits are not the only benefit, and entering the world of Swiss Banking opens you to a world of specialist advisors in the world of asset protection and investment advice. Such advisors dedicate themselves to protecting and helping you to take full advantage of your money — and is generally a fee or commission based service. Swiss financial institutions are famous for their professionalism and loyalty and uphold one of the most unique financial characteristics of Swiss Banking — ‘Banking Secrecy’. The concept of Banking Secrecy originally developed from the 1934 Swiss Bank act and offers a legal support for your financial data and offers you a certain degree of discretion and peace of mind. This leads us to the first paragraph of this article — the image of Swiss Banking. If there is intent of criminal activity, this anonymity is NOT designed to protect those interests. Swiss institutions follow a strict KYC (Know Your Customer) protocol which is used to determine legitimate sources of all funds being invested. If one’s interests are motivated by illegal tax evasion, Swiss banking is not the place for you — you are far more likely to be reported by the Swiss institution involved than be found by your own jurisdiction.

Read the full article →

Tea Party-Backed Lawmakers: Defense In Mix For Budget Cuts

January 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Back home, tea partiers clamoring for the debt-ridden government to slash spending say nothing should be off limits. Tea party-backed lawmakers echo that argument, and they’re not exempting the military’s multibillion-dollar budget in a time of war. That demand is creating hard choices for the newest members of Congress, especially Republicans who owe their elections and solid House majority to the influential grass-roots movement. Cutting defense and canceling weapons could mean deep spending reductions and high marks from tea partiers as the nation wrestles with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Yet it also could jeopardize thousands of jobs when unemployment is running high. Proponents of the cuts could face criticism that they’re trying to weaken national security in a post-Sept. 11 world. House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans’ programs from spending cuts in their party’s “Pledge to America” campaign manifesto last fall. But the House’s new majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board. The defense budget is about $700 billion annually. Few in Congress have been willing to make cuts as U.S. troops fight in Afghanistan and finish the operation in Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a recent pre-emptive move, proposed $78 billion in spending cuts and an additional $100 billion in cost-saving moves. While that amounts to $13 billion less than the Pentagon wanted to spend in the coming year, it still stands as 3 percent growth after inflation is taken into account. That’s why tea party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military’s budget needs to be part of the mix. “The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table,” said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. “It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are ‘off the table’ must be taken off the table.” Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, leaders of the group FreedomWorks, recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that “defense spending should not be exempt from scrutiny.” On Gates’ proposed savings of $145 billion over five years, they said, “That’s a start.” Just about all Republicans – and plenty of Democrats, too – favor paring back spending. But when it comes to specific cuts – eliminating money for schools, parks, hospitals, highways and everything else – the decisions get difficult. Every government expenditure has its advocate and no one wants his or her program cut. Fault lines have emerged within the Republican ranks over how deep to cut and where to whittle. In the coming weeks, lawmakers will feel the pressure from constituents and colleagues. “Everything is ultimately on the table,” said Rep. Jon Runyan of New Jersey, a freshman Republican and a tea party favorite. That view could produce a rough tenure for the 6-foot-7 former football player, who just earned a coveted spot on the House Armed Services Committee, a fierce protector of military interests. The congressman’s district is home to Fort Dix, which merged with neighboring McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station to make the military’s first three-branch base. Runyan expects a committee fight over Gates’ proposal to cancel a $14 billion program to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines and use that money to buy additional ships, F-18 jets and new electronic jammers. Already, several members of the panel, including the chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., have signaled they will challenge Gates’ move. Runyan says he will decide after he’s heard arguments from both sides. No matter how much defense spending is trimmed, none of the cuts is likely to reduce the money that’s available to the military to spend on the war fronts. “We want to make sure men and women put in harm’s way have the resources they need,” said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who recently traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan with several of his GOP colleagues, including a number of other freshmen. “That doesn’t mean the entire defense budget has to be taken off the table,” he added. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said he didn’t think “anything ought to be off-limits for the effort to reduce spending.” He told “Fox News Sunday” that “I don’t think we ought to start out with the notion that a whole lot of areas in the budget are exempt from reducing spending, which is what we really need to do and do it quickly.” Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has proposed cutting total government spending by $153 billion, including deep reductions in defense and elimination of several weapons programs. Brady called it a “down payment” on getting the country’s finances in order. In an unusual political pairing, liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas. “I’ll work with anybody,” Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans. The schism within the GOP is philosophical as well as generational. Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a tea party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party. For all the talk, one tea party group is willing to give lawmakers some leeway, provided that they adhere to the movement’s values. Sal Russo, chief strategist of the Tea Party Express, said the defense budget should be part of the calculation and his organization expects lawmakers to “responsibly bring spending down.” He added that his group will give them “flexibility to do their job.” Tea party-backed Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said lawmakers “at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget.” But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military – one in the Air Force, the other in the Army. ___ Online: Pledge to America: http://pledge.gop.gov Tea Party Patriots: http://www.teapartypatriots.org Tea Party Express: http://www.teapartyexpress.org FreedomWorks: http://www.freedomworks.org

Read the full article →

SOTU PREVIEW: What Obama Will Focus On In Tuesday’s Address

January 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — Under pressure to energize the economy, President Barack Obama said Saturday he will use his State of the Union address to outline an agenda to create jobs now and boost American competitiveness over the long term. Heading quickly into re-election mode, Obama is expected to use Tuesday’s prime-time speech to promote spending on innovation while also promising to reduce the national debt and cooperate with emboldened Republicans. “I’m focused on making sure the economy is working for everybody, for the entire American family,” Obama said Saturday in an uncommon preview of his speech, offered up in an online video to his supporters late Saturday afternoon. The president announced that the economy would be the main topic of his speech, a nod to how important that issue is to the country’s standing and his own as well. At the halfway point of his term, Obama said the economy is on firmer footing than it was two years ago: it is growing again, albeit slowly, while the stock market is rising, and corporate profits are climbing. But with the unemployment rate stubbornly stuck above 9 percent, Obama will signal a shift Tuesday from short-term stabilization policies toward ones focused on job creation and longer-term growth. Obama offered no details on specific proposals he will call for in his address, though he has offered hints in recent weeks. Perhaps the clearest came in an overlooked speech in North Carolina last month, one that will likely serve as a template of what the nation is about to hear. Obama said then that making the U.S. more competitive means investing in a more educated work force, committing more to research and technology, and improving everything from highways and airports to high-speed Internet. In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama also highlighted free trade as a way to increase U.S. exports and put Americans to work. “That’s how we’ll create jobs today,” Obama said. “That’s how we’ll make America more competitive tomorrow. And that’s how we’ll win the future.” Obama’s challenge will be to find the money and political will to spend it, at a time when he’s pledged to reduce spending and tackle the mountainous debt. In his preview to supporters Saturday, Obama said he would emphasize fiscal restraint Tuesday, but didn’t go into detail, saying only that any spending cuts should be done in a “responsible way.” The president is under growing pressure to tackle the debt from the public and lawmakers, particularly some newly elected Republicans who ran on pledges to cut spending. Obama, too, has made spending cuts a priority, setting up a bipartisan fiscal commission which recommended tax hikes and cuts to entitlement programs – both efforts that would likely be a hard sell with the American people. Obama will speak Tuesday to a Congress changed both by Republican wins in the November election and the attempted assassination of one of its own. Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head two weeks ago during an event in her district in Tucson, Ariz. Since then, the president has appealed for more civility in politics, and in a nod to that ideal, some Democrats and Republicans will break with tradition and sit alongside each other in the House chamber Tuesday night. Obama hinted Saturday that he would build on that theme during the State of the Union, tying the country’s economic success to bipartisan cooperation. “We’re up to it, as long as we come together as a people_Republicans, Democrats, Independents_as long as we focus on what binds us together as a people, as long as we’re willing to find common ground even as we’re having some very vigorous debates,” Obama said. The White House sees competitiveness as a framework Republicans could support. GOP lawmakers traditionally have backed the types of trade deals and research-and-development efforts that Obama is promoting. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared to give the president an opening when he said last week in a speech that “my advice to my colleagues is if the president is willing to do what we would do anyway, then we should say yes.” Yet for all the talk of bipartisanship, Obama will deliver Tuesday’s address at a time when his White House is shifting into re-election mode. Obama plans to file papers to formally run for re-election around March, and several aides are moving to Chicago to run the 2012 campaign. Saturday’s video preview to supporters signaled a return to the campaign-style outreach Obama’s team mastered in 2008, and underscored his need to rally his base around his agenda. The White House is keenly aware that Obama’s re-election prospects likely hinge on the state of the economy. More than half of those questioned in a new Associated Press-GfK poll disapproved of how he’s handled the economy, and just 35 percent said it’s improved on his watch. Three-quarters of those surveyed did say it’s unrealistic to expect noticeable improvements after two years. They said it will take longer. Obama’s preview Saturday focused exclusively on his domestic agenda, with no mention of foreign policy. Obama is, however, expected to frame his call for competitiveness in global terms, calling for a new Sputnik moment – a reference to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of the first satellite, ahead of the U.S. He intends to say the U.S. is again facing challenges from abroad, this time from fast-growing economies in China, India and throughout Southeast Asia. In his travels to Asia and during Chinese President Hu Jintao’s recent trip to Washington, Obama has said he’s been struck by the rapid rise of that region and the laser-like focus on competing in the global economy. “They are thinking each and every day about how to educate their work force, rebuild their infrastructure, enter into new markets,” Obama said in November, after wrapping up a 10-day Asia trip. “We should feel confident about our ability to compete, but we are going to have to step up our game.”

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: The Man Who Turns Water Into Gold

January 22, 2011

When we’re young, we build castles in the sand. And when we grow up, some of us build empires. One fella intimately familiar with the empire-building process, a relatively unknown name to the masses, unlike such nationally known empire builders as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, is 67-year-old Dick Heckmann. Not only has he done it before, but he’s busily engaged in pursuing an encore. “I want to be an $800 million gorilla again,” says Heckmann, a one-time Fuller brush man who’s convinced he’s off to a solid start in achieving that goal. The Old Testament says dream no small dreams, and that surely applies to our would-be gorilla, not only an achiever who dreams big, but one who doggedly follows up with the necessary action to make sure his dreams will come true. That was the case in 1990 when Heckmann, together with the aid of a secretary, founded United States Filter Corp., a New York Stock Exchange-listed company that treated waste water and water that went into manufactured products. Though the subsequent acquisition of 260 water firms and internal growth, he built a booming business with annualized revenues of $5 billion over the next nine years that was sold in 1999 to Vivendi for $8.2 billion. In the process, the sales of U.S. Filter under Heckmann’s leadership doubled every year for nine straight years, while the company’s shares ballooned from $0.75 to $33. So any investor who plunked down a few bucks on Heckmann wound up making a bundle as he literally turned water into gold. The latest project for Heckmann, who has amassed an estimated net worth of about $200 million, which includes a part ownership in the Phoenix Suns basketball team, is big board listed Heckmann Corp. Launched in November 2008 and headquartered in Palm Desert, CA., it buys and builds companies in the water sector. Once again, our empire builder is off and running. In a little more than two years, Heckman has developed a host of water-related businesses and has become a dominant player in water treatment related to energy (notably getting rid of excess water coming out of gas wells). Among the operations and investments are a 100% ownership of China Water & Drinks, one of the largest suppliers of water to Coca-Cola in China, a 100%-owned produced water pipeline and disposable company based in Tyler, Texas, a 50% ownership of a water solutions company, a joint venture between Heckman Corp. and big board-listed Energy Transfer Partners L.P., and a 7% stake in Underground Solutions, a supplier of PVC pipe with patented technologies. You can invest in chips, toys, cars and steel, Heckmann notes, and everyone knows the name of the biggest player. But not so, he points out, in water, which is probably a trillion-dollar business and is the only industry he knows in which he wouldn’t have to fight an 800-pound gorilla. Heckmann aims to fill the void. Within five years, he figures, his firm will be the largest independent pure water company in the U.S. and the only one at that time with annual sales of more than $1 billion. Maybe so, but he’s got a long way to go. In its first full operating year (2009), Heckmann Corp. posted sales of $35 million, accompanied by a whopping $395 million loss. Late last year, the company acquired a firm with $70 million of sales, raising overall volume to $105 million. Heckmann wouldn’t discuss 2011 prospects, but expectations in some quarters have it that the company, which is believed to have turned profitable in last year’s fourth quarter, will record $140 million in sales this year and an EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of about $20 million. At the moment, says Heckmann, the company has $200 million in cash, no debt and a team that has done it before (a reference to his hiring of a number of former U.S. Filter employees). An obvious question: Why, given his age and his hefty net worth, is Heckmann looking to build another empire? “Because,” he quipped, “I started playing golf, I’m never going to make the senior tour, and I love the water business.” Whether indeed Heckmann can pull off a spectacular encore is anybody’s guess. At least some market players are skeptical, as evidenced by the company’s stock performance (the firm went public at $8 a share, rose to as high as $10.74 and is now selling at $4.96). Likewise, there is a current short interest (a bet the stock price will fall) of more than 3 million of the company’s roughly 108 million shares outstanding. “Heckmann is a big maybe and this is the wrong environment for maybes,” says one short seller, who is making money on his Heckmann short position. Neil Weisman, a former hedge fund manager who ran Chilmark Capital between 1987 and 1993 and turned in some dazzling showings, disagrees. “Heckmann is only in the second inning,” says Weisman, who expects strong growth and the shares to trade north of $10 over the next 12 months. Apparently, he’s putting his money where his mouth is, reportedly holding, I’m told, somewhere between 2 and 3 million shares in his own personal account. As Weisman sees it, “H20 is the way to go and Heckmann is the best way to do it.” What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com .

Read the full article →

Chris Birk: VA Borrowers Facing Foreclosure to Get Cash Relocation Assistance

January 21, 2011

Veterans who lose their homes to a short sale or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure can now receive up to $1,500 in relocation assistance. The VA has for years incentivized mortgage servicers to work with veterans on the edge of default. Now, the agency has directed its approved servicers to provide that cash advance to borrowers who use a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or who complete a VA compromise claim to unload their short sale. The directive went into effect on Jan. 6. Borrowers can use the money to cover moving expenses or to simply pay for lodging while they deal with the pending loss of their home. “VA has a longstanding policy of encouraging servicers to work with veteran borrowers to explore all reasonable options to help them retain their homes or, when that is not feasible, to mitigate losses by pursuing alternatives to foreclosure,” according to the two-page VA circular released on the subject. “These options generally provide a substantially better outcome than a foreclosure sale for borrowers, investors, and communities.” Borrowers won’t receive that assistance as part of sale proceeds. The VA plans to reimburse servicers, who can secure a reimbursement up to the maximum VA guaranty along with any costs associated with resale. The measure comes in part as a cost efficiency tool. Short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure take considerably less time and money to complete than the traditional foreclosure process. The odds are also better that the property will remain in good shape. Servicers are expected to notify borrowers of their options regarding foreclosure. Furthermore, the VA continues to push servicers to follow Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) procedures regarding potential short sales, mostly by halting any foreclosure proceedings while borrowers evaluate their options. Despite the economic environment, VA loans as a whole continue to thrive in the face of foreclosure. These government-backed loans have the lowest rate of foreclosure among major lending programs, a staggering fact considering that 90 percent of VA loans come with no down payment. VA officials continue to work hard to keep veterans in their homes. In fact, nearly 75 percent of the VA borrowers who defaulted in 2009 were able to avoid foreclosure. A slightly different version of this article was published originally on OurBroker.com , a leading source of real estate, mortgage and foreclosure news and information.

Read the full article →

Facebook Hints At Possible IPO Date

January 21, 2011

(AP) NEW YORK — Facebook says it has raised $1 billion from non-U.S. investors through Goldman Sachs. Combined with a $500 million investment from Goldman, funds Goldman manages and Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies in December, the investments value Facebook at $50 billion. Facebook said Friday the money gives it greater financial flexibility. It did say how it plans to spend it. The company says that while it had the option to raise up to $1.5 billion through Goldman, it decided to limit it to $1 billion. As expected, Facebook says it will start filing public financial reports by April 2012. The company noted in a statement , “Even before the investment from Goldman Sachs, Facebook had expected to pass 500 shareholders at some point in 2011, and therefore expects to start filing public financial reports no later than April 30, 2012.” The company expects to have more than 500 shareholders in April of this year. When it does, regulations require it to start reporting is finances to the public within a year.

Read the full article →

Les Leopold: Financial Socialism by and for Wall Street Elites?

January 21, 2011

More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street’s return to financial health. A large majority also want to tax Wall Street profits to reduce the federal budget deficit. A levy on financial services firms is the top choice among more than a dozen deficit-cutting options presented to respondents. Bloomberg As bonus season arrives, the gap between the American people and Wall Street couldn’t be wider. And where is Washington in this great divide? Don’t ask. At a moment when Americans desperately want jobs on Main Street and expect Wall Street to pay its fair share, Washington officials are hard at work — seeking jobs for themselves on Wall Street. (Congratulations, Peter Orszag, on parlaying your position as Obama’s OMB director into a top job at CitiGroup, the bank that received hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts and guarantees on your watch!) Most Americans rightly sense that our mixed free-enterprise economy, which once built a broad middle class, has devolved into a system of financial socialism by and for elites. The public wants and deserves answers to these basic questions: 1 . Why do people in the financial sector make so much more money than the rest of us? Mainstream economists claim that your income reflects the economic value you produce — at least in free and open markets. But are proprietary traders, for example, really 100 times more valuable than neurosurgeons? In the UK, some economists say no: The British New Economics Foundation calculates that “While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.” Let’s try a back-of-the envelope calculation of Wall Street’s net social value. Compare their bonuses and profits for roughly the last five years (about $500 billion) with the economic losses produced in the financial crisis the bankers caused (about $4 trillion in value destroyed, not counting the ongoing travails of the 22 million people who haven’t yet been able to find a full-time job). For every dollar “earned” on Wall Street, about 8 dollars were destroyed. (In case you’re suffering from financial amnesia and forgot how the financial sector single-handedly caused the economic crisis, please see The Looting of America . Chapter One can be found gratis on Alternet.com.) There’s plenty of room for argument about this kind of calculation. But even Wall Street wizards would have trouble defending the billions they’ve acquired by profiting from a bubble that blew up the economy. What’s the real value of junk CDOs that were rated AAA and then sold for enormous profits before they blew up? We could make a strong case that those who profited from such bubble investments – like the people who sold synthetic CDOs to Wisconsin school districts — should pay back their fraudulent profits. (In fact, the school districts have filed a lawsuit toward that end.) 2. Do current profits of financial firms come from tax-payer bailouts? The old free-market mantra was that you could make as much as you wanted, so long as you were willing to accept all the risks that went with it. Joseph Schumpeter, a great defender of capitalism during the 1940s when much of the world was turning towards socialism, called the process of winning and losing “creative destruction.” In his vision of capitalism, the best and the brightest staked everything in their quest for success, and only the true innovators survived. Inefficient enterprises would be left by the wayside. So… are the survivors of the economic collapse like CitiGroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, receiving their just rewards? Actually, it sounds a bit quaint these days to suggest that the rich must actually suffer the consequences of failure. These top financial institutions did not have to pay for their reckless gambling and gaming because they were deemed to big too fail, and so were bailed out. Goldman Sachs, for example, made a very bad bet when it purchased $13 billion of financial “insurance” from AIG to cover its toxic assets. AIG, due to its own enormously bad business decisions, could not pay up and was on the verge of bankruptcy. Had it gone under, as Schumpeter probably would have urged, Goldman Sachs would have received pennies on the dollar for its bad gamble, and might have gone broke. Instead, AIG was bailed out by taxpayers and Goldman Sachs got 100 cents on the dollar. It gambled, lost, and instead of suffering the consequences, was made whole by the government. And now Goldman Sachs execs are hauling in tens of millions in bonuses (disguised as stock options, even as its profits slip a bit from astronomical highs.) Clearly, the “free and open” market did not determine who should be spared “creative destruction.” Instead, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase et al were saved because of their deep political connections. These companies would be kaput were it not for taxpayer bailouts, hastily contrived loans, and all kinds of market guarantees from their friends at the Fed. Schumpeter would have recognized this scheme in a flash: It’s precisely the kind of crony socialism that he detested, only this time the game was was designed by and for financial elites in the world’s largest capitalist economy. (Please don’t compare the Wall Street rescues to the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Wall Street received ten times as much and will pay themselves a hundred times more than the top auto-executives. And the auto industry didn’t topple the US economy and send millions to the unemployment lines.) 3. But since Wall Street is paying us back, why shouldn’t they go back to earning whatever they can? Let’s follow through on that logic. Let’s say you raid your husband’s pension fund for $100,000 and take the bus to Vegas, naively hoping to triple your money. As luck would have it, you lose it all. Desperate, you manage to borrow another two million from a rich friend (Wall Street calls it “leverage”) — and then you really load up on your bets. Tragically, you lose that too. I hate to tell you this, but you’re in big trouble now. Don’t expect the government to come around and offer to cover your losses with taxpayer bailouts so you can keep on gambling till the lights go out, and then, if you win, pay back the government. That is, unless you’re too big to fail — say, a very large, well-connected investment bank. In that case, party on! It’s true, Wall Street has paid us back for much of the bailout money we gave them. That’s the good news. The bad news is that, having been rewarded for their bad behavior, they’re now back at the casino tables, playing many of the same games that took down the economy in the first place. This time there are even fewer players who are now way too big to fail. And fewer players means less competition — hence the rise in banking “fees,” especially for the average consumer. 4. Where does all their wealth come from? There are only two possible sources for all the money the financial sector is spewing: The bankers are either creating new wealth or they’re siphoning off wealth from the rest of us. Hedge fund honchos like to boast about how they weren’t bailed out and therefore are entitled to their enormous hauls. (The top 10 in 2009 earned an average of $900,000 an HOUR. The top 25 earned as much as 658,000 entry level teachers.) But our noble hedge fund managers have a great deal of difficulty accounting for what I call their “paradox of productivity.” You see, there’s supposed to be a connection between the productivity of your employees and your profits. Apple Corporation, for example, earned about $6 billion in 2009 by expertly engaging its 35,000 employees. (They went on to earn $6 billion in the last quarter of 2010 alone.) Along the way they offered us an array of popular new products that people are enjoying and putting to use. Appaloosa, the hedge fund, earned about as much as Apple in 2009 by speculating on god knows what. But it has fewer than 250 employees and it’s not at all clear what these individuals added to our economy — certainly not the iPad. How can 250 workers, no matter how wise and talented, produce as much real worth speculating on stuff as 35,000 Apple employees can make inventing, manufacturing and marketing useful products? They can’t. So hedge funds must be siphoning off wealth from elsewhere, not creating it themselves. (If you think I’m wrong, please prove otherwise, because I haven’t found a single book or paper about hedge funds, even from insiders or academics, that explains this paradox of productivity.) Ever since the crash, I’ve been calling for a ban on Wall Street bonuses and for new taxes on the financial sector. Though I felt like I was hollering in the wind, apparently most Americans agree (if we can believe the polls cited above). I naively thought that during the crash the government would come done hard on Wall Street as it did during the 1930s. I was wrong. Instead we have institutionalized a festering problem that allows Wall Street to continue siphoning off the nation’s wealth. So we have to think about a more radical restructuring. I believe the only way to end financial socialism for elites is to turn the core of high finance into group of heavily regulated public utilities — like power, water and electricity (not semi-private entities like Fannie and Freddie before they were nationalized). Financial socialism for elites has failed and will fail again, plunging millions of Americans into joblessness and sinking our nation deeply into debt. Big government has many faults, of course. But the American people, I believe, can tell the difference between public utilities that aim to serve the economy and a private oligopoly that only serves a tiny elite. Ironically, those who run the government don’t want government to end financial socialism (maybe because of financial industry campaign contributions–or because of Wall Street’s inviting revolving door). It may take another crash before Washington is willing to listen. Les Leopold is the author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street’s Game of Fantasy Finance destroyed our Jobs, Pensions and Prosperity, and What We Can Do About It Chelsea Green Publishing, June 2009. He is currently working on a new book, How to Earn $900,000 an Hour: The Rise of Wall Street Billionaires and the One-sided Class War, (hopefully to be published in 2011).

Read the full article →

Wells Fargo’s Profit Rises

January 19, 2011

NEW YORK — Wells Fargo & Co., one of the largest lenders to consumers among U.S. banks, on Wednesday said its fourth-quarter profit shot up, as its customers payment habits improved and it was able to lower the amount of reserves set aside to cover souring loans. The San Francisco-based bank said its net income attributable to common stockholders was $3.2 billion, or 61 cents per share. Last year, the company earned $394 million, or 8 cents per share, as its results were affected by a large preferred dividend paid to the government, which was not necessary this year. Wells Fargo in December 2009 paid back the bailout money it received from the government during the financial crisis. The latest results matched the 61 cents per share forecast by analysts polled by FactSet, but shares dipped slightly in early trading. Wells Fargo stock lost 15 cents to $32.34 after the opening bell. CEO John Stumpf said all the bank’s business segments contributed to earnings as the economy started to gain strength. The bank reported a notable improvement in the performance of its outstanding loans. The total loans it had to write off as uncollectable fell to $3.84 billion, from $5.9 billion in the 2009 quarter. Loans considered past due and likely to default declined for the first time since Wells Fargo bought Wachovia in late 2008, ending the quarter at $32.4 billion. Wells Fargo wrote off 29 percent fewer uncollectable loans than in the 2009 quarter and released $850 million from loan-loss reserves, the money set aside to cover soured lending. Wells Fargo said its net interest income, or the money earned from deposits and loans, fell 4 percent to $11.06 billion. Noninterest income, or earnings from fees and charges, fell 7 percent to $10.4 billion. Notable was a 19 percent decline in noninterest income from its mortgage business, to $2.76 billion. It also posted a 27 percent plunge in service charges on its deposit accounts, to $1.04 billion. That indicates that new government regulations restricting fees like overdraft charges had a big impact.

Read the full article →

AP: Year Ahead Looms As Toughest Yet For State Budgets

January 15, 2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — If 2011 is hinting at a national recovery, there is little sign of it in statehouses across the country. States that already have raided their reserve funds, relied on borrowing or accounting gimmicks, and imposed deep cuts on schools, parks and public transit systems no longer can protect key services in the face of another round of multibillion dollar deficits. As governors roll out their budget proposals and legislatures convene this month, they do so amid a sputtering economic recovery and predictions of slow growth for years to come. State and local governments face lackluster revenue projections, worries from Wall Street over looming debt and the end of federal stimulus spending. In the first weeks of 2011, Republican and Democratic governors alike have begun detailing across-the-board pain for education, health care, transportation, public safety and other programs. Some say the year of reckoning for state and local governments is at hand, with calls for structural changes that could radically shift expectations of what services government provides. Many believe the months ahead will be the most challenging in memory, with consequences for millions who depend on government funding. “We need to send a message to the governor: We’re real, and we depend on all these services,” said Sergio Garibay, a 41-year-old Southern California resident who relies on state disability payments and recently protested deep cuts to Medi-Cal programs proposed by California Gov. Jerry Brown. “There are other alternatives to the budget. Why don’t we tax the rich, these corporations?” In releasing his budget proposal, Brown told California lawmakers “the year ahead will demand courage and sacrifice” as the state faces a deficit projected to hit $25.4 billion over the next 18 months. His proposal combines spending cuts to Medi-Cal, in-home services for the elderly and higher education with a five-year extension of income, sales and vehicle taxes. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo proposed eliminating 20 percent of state agencies by combining duties, such as merging the Insurance Department, Banking Department and the Consumer Protection Board into the Department of Financial Regulation. It’s part of “radical reform” to pull his state out of its fiscal crisis. And Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey skipped a $3.1 billion payment to the state’s pension system in a push to cut benefits for public workers, while proposing higher employee contributions and a boost in the retirement age from 62 to 65. In Illinois, lawmakers voted for a dramatic 66 percent hike in personal income tax, from 3 percent to 5 percent, in a bid to resolve a $15 billion deficit, which amounts to more than half of the state’s entire general fund. The tax increase will be coupled with strict 2 percent limits on spending growth. “It’s important for their state government not to be a fiscal basket case,” Gov. Pat Quinn in defending the major tax hike. And on and on it goes: _ In oil-rich Texas, where education and social service spending is relatively low and Republican Gov. Rick Perry has railed against government spending, hard times are looming. The shortfall is projected to be between $15 billion and $27 billion over the coming two-year budget cycle. _ In South Carolina, outgoing Gov. Mark Sanford has proposed a spending plan that would end funding for museum and arts programs, slash college funding and give many state employees a 5 percent pay cut. _ In Georgia, deep cuts appear to await the state’s popular HOPE scholarship program that provides public college tuition to students who earn good grades. Rising tuition and enrollment have outpaced the lottery revenues that fund the program and Gov. Nathan Deal has not proposed any additional state money to bail it out. Even as tax revenue in many states shows signs of a rebound, states are expected to collect 6.5 percent less than they did in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. And any revenue gains could be more than offset by the expected loss of federal stimulus money. Most of the $814 billion stimulus program was designed to help states provide essential services and give a boost to the economy, but will start to run out this summer. A new round of stimulus funding is unlikely with Republicans controlling one house of Congress. Top GOP lawmakers say they will try to provide states with relief by reducing mandated programs, not by giving them more money. “States came into this recession with relatively large rainy day funds. Now that states have done the accounting gimmicks and the relatively easier stuff, each year gets harder and harder because those one-time things are gone,” said Nicholas Johnson, director of the state fiscal project at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Despite lower tax revenue since the recession began, the level of service expected from state and local governments remains, often creating a disconnect between public perception and the reality of the fiscal crisis confronting elected officials. Public schools face rising enrollments, more people are seeking government health care because they have lost jobs or their employers have dropped coverage, and millions of those thrown out of work are receiving unemployment checks. One possible solution is revising tax structures, even with an anti-tax mood persisting across much of the nation. In Georgia, some lawmakers are considering a 4 percent state sales tax on groceries and boosting the tax on cigarettes as part of an overhaul of the state’s outdated tax code. The increases would be paired with reductions in the personal and corporate income taxes. But any proposal for tax increases will run into opposition from Republicans, who were swept into office in large numbers last fall on a message of reducing the size and reach of government. Republicans picked up 690 state legislative seats Nov. 2 – the largest shift since 1966, according to data compiled by the national legislative group. The GOP now controls both chambers of the state legislature as well as the governorship in 21 states. “When you’ve got an unemployment rate at 10 percent, I don’t think that’s a good time for us to tell Georgians that we need more of their money,” Georgia House Speaker David Ralston said. “I’m going to resist that again this year.” As states struggle to balance their books, Wall Street is watching rising debt burdens, although analysts so far have not sounded many alarms. Federal law does not allow states to file for bankruptcy protection, but states can default on their debt if their financial condition worsens considerably. That move is extremely rare. Arkansas was the last state to default on its debt payments, a move it took during the Great Depression. Moody’s predicts that no state government will default on its debt in 2011. Moody’s Managing Director, Naomi Richman, said states generally borrow for long-term infrastructure projects. They don’t usually borrow to pay debt and fund operating budgets. Those that have, including California, Illinois and Arizona, already have been penalized with low credit ratings, which increases their borrowing costs. It’s possible, however, that more cash-strapped cities and counties could seek bailouts from states, as Harrisburg sought help from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. “I think you’re more likely to see it cascade up, rather than down,” said Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, during a discussion about state budgets at George Mason University. Kail Padgitt, an economist with the nonpartisan, nonprofit Tax Foundation, said the states with the greatest concerns about their fiscal health are those with costly public employee pensions that are underfunded. Many public pension systems use overly optimistic rates of return and do not provide a true, long-term cost to taxpayers. Padgitt cited a recent study by the Pew Center on the States that found states face a $1 trillion funding shortfall in public-sector retirement benefits, but said that likely underestimate the problem. “The long-term outlook is quite bad,” Padgitt said unless states begin to make pension reforms. Matt Hanson, 50, a civil engineer who has worked for California’s transportation department for 22 years, said he understands that public pension systems could use adjustments but he believes pensions are fundamentally sound. For example, he said he’s open to contributing more to cover retiree health care costs, which have been rising. “If there’s some shared pain that has to be felt than I want it to be constructive,” Hanson said. “There’s a difference between going out for a run and feeling pain right after – at least you’ll be in better shape in the long run, rather than hitting your hand with a hammer. Pain for pain’s sake doesn’t make a lot of sense.” ____ McCaffrey reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writer Robert Jablon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Get the Most Out of Your Gift Cards

January 14, 2011

If someone gave you a $50 bill, you probably wouldn’t just stick it in a drawer and forget about it. But that’s essentially what happens to billions of dollars worth of gift cards people receive each year — they either lose or forget about them, or never use up their balances. Final 2010 holiday sales numbers aren’t in yet, but the National Retail Federation expected a 4 percent increase in 2010 over 2009, so chances are you got more gift cards in your stocking than in the past. Here’s a basic primer on how gift cards work. There are two basic types: Retail gift cards, which can be used to buy goods or services at a single merchant or affiliated group of merchants. Network-branded gift cards, which are issued by a bank and carry the logo of a payment card network (like Visa, MasterCard or American Express) and can be used at any location accepting cards from that network. Account information is stored in the card’s magnetic strip. If you’re not sure of the remaining balance, ask the merchant to scan the card, call the toll-free number on the card or look it up on the card issuer’s website provided. Many cards can be reloaded for multiple use; and most can be replaced if lost or stolen — although you may have to provide proof of purchase and pay a replacement fee. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 changed the laws governing gift cards sold on or after August 22, 2010. It requires that: Money loaded on gift cards must not expire for at least five years from the date of purchase or after funds were last reloaded. If the card itself expires but the funds in the account haven’t, you can request a free replacement card. Inactivity and service fees may not be charged until after 12 months of inactivity; after that, only one such fee may be deducted from the balance each month. These restrictions apply to monthly maintenance or service fees, balance inquiry fees, and transaction-based fees, such as reload fees, ATM fees, and point-of-sale fees charged by the card issuer. (Fees for activation or lost/stolen card replacement are exempt.) Fees must be clearly disclosed on the card or its packaging. (However, Congress agreed to extend until January 31, 2011, the deadline for printing disclosure language on cards themselves if produced before April 1, 2010, to avoid having to destroy millions of existing cards.) If you own gift cards issued before August 22, 2010, note that prior rules may apply. Also, these new rules do not apply to other types of prepaid cards, such as reloadable prepaid cards not marketed or labeled as a gift card or gift certificate, and prepaid cards received through a loyalty, rebate, award or promotional program. Paper gift cards and gift certificates also are excluded. Here are a few tips to get the most out of your gift cards: Use them quickly; the longer you wait, the more likely you are to forget or misplace them. Use the same handling precautions as you would with cash; in addition, write down all account numbers and related toll-free numbers in case you need to report a lost or stolen card. Retain spent cards until you’re sure you won’t return purchased items — some retailers won’t accept a return without the card. Ask if the retailer will honor the card for online purchases, if that’s your preferred shopping method. Be sure to use up the entire account balance, or ask if a cash refund is available. You may be able to use multiple cards for a single purchase — for example, if you have several low-balance Starbucks cards. If you don’t care for a particular retailer, consider trading gift cards with friends. Or check out some of the websites that have sprung up where you can buy, sell or swap gift cards, such as CardHub , Plastic Jungle , and Swapagift.com . Some even allow you to donate the sales proceeds to charity. Just make sure you understand any transaction or registration fees or commissions that may be charged. A few additional safeguards to remember: If you have a retail gift card and the company goes out of business, you may forfeit the balance. Be aware that digital gift cards (e.g., for iTunes or Amazon), sometimes get caught by your computer’s spam filter, so you may not be aware they’ve been sent. Be cautious when trading cards with strangers. For example, if using a third-party exchange site, ask about their verification policies and check with the Better Business Bureau for any complaints. Avoid unsolicited offers that sound too good to be true; for example, Facebook has reported scam artists posting bogus links and fan pages that offer free cards, which, if accessed, can harvest personal information. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. To participate in a free, online Financial Literacy and Education Summit on April 4, 2011, go to Practical Money Skills .

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: Mr. President, Americans Agree On Social Security; So Talk to Us, Not Washington

January 13, 2011

Mr. President, you moved a nation today with your words in Tucson. “Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame,” you said, “let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” You also said this: “It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” Two weeks from now the State of the Union address will be an opportunity to bring Americans together — Americans who have been bitterly divided by party loyalty and ideology, but who stand united in their support for the social programs that have improved our lives for the past seventy-five years. On that night, will they know that somebody has heard them? Will they feel that someone is talking to them? Will they feel they have a voice inside the Capitol rotunda, in a city where they sometimes seem to have been forgotten? There’s a popular idea in Washington that I’ve — perhaps too harshly — called “the Third Way Fallacy.” It essentially says we can end the harsh and divisive nature of today’s politics by having Washington party leaders work out their differences in private. Some of us think that’s the wrong way to go about the people’s business — that a truly “bipartisan” approach must respect the opinions of each party’s members , not just those of its leaders. But whatever my past criticisms of Third Way, the organization had a terrific suggestion today for increasing civility in politics. In an open letter to Speaker Boehner, they suggested that the Congressional seating chart be changed for this year’s State of the Union address so that members aren’t separated by party. “We do not see any purpose behind putting Democrats on one side of the floor and Republicans on the other,” Third Way’s letter said. “The spectacle of one side of the room leaping to its feet while the other sits glumly on its hands is just that — a spectacle. Perhaps having both parties sit together, intermingled, would help control the choreography of partisanship that accompanies the President’s remarks.” This idea is smart, moving, and even beautiful. The State of the Union has turned into an annual circus, as you know far better than I. Americans want more statesmanship in Washington, and this would be a symbolic way of letting them know they’ve been heard. The Speaker would bring honor to himself and his institution if he took this suggestion. It would, in Third Way’s words, “demonstrate what is true but not always apparent — that we are one nation, not two, and that Members are unified by their service to our country.” Mr. Boehner is famous for crying in public, but if he follows this suggestion maybe we’ll cry instead. It might be good for the country if more of us shared the burden of tears. But the business at hand won’t just be symbolic. As you know, Mr. President, leaders of both political parties have been talking about Social Security cuts. Your own Deficit Commission came up with some very Draconian (and unpopular) ideas, and members of your Administration haven’t committed to defending retirement benefits. There are even rumors that people in your Administration have floated trial balloons about cutting a deal with Republicans to raise the retirement age and make other cuts. Inside the Beltway there’s some “bipartisan” approval for those ideas. But outside Washington the real bipartisan consensus is even stronger: Large majorities of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike — agree that Social Security must be defended, not cut. Mr. President, I hope you’ll have the chance to see the poll numbers on Social Security. We know you’ve said you won’t govern by following polls, and we respect that. But it’s moving and inspiring to see the way Americans of all political parties have joined together in their defense of Social Security. They speak with one voice about how to handle it: Raise the payroll tax cap and protect its current benefits. They’re equally united in their defense of Medicare in similarly large numbers. These are the people’s programs, and people of all political persuasions want them protected. We know that Americans don’t like party squabbling. But that doesn’t mean they want the two parties to collaborate on policies that rank-and-file members of both parties have rejected. Voters mean exactly what they’ve told those pollsters for years: They want Washington politicians to work for them , not each other. They’ll be watching on January 25 to see their leaders speak to them, or to each other. When asked how we should cut the deficit, Americans would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut Social Security by more than two to one. These Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — make up the New Silent Majority, and they speak with a single voice. To paraphrase Third Way, when they talk about Social Security they demonstrate what is true but not always apparent — that we are one nation, not two. This bipartisan consensus has the unwavering support of non -partisan experts, too — experts like Harry C. Ballantyne, who was appointed Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration under Ronald Reagan. Mr. Ballantyne and two respected economists wrote a paper that explains how the bipartisan preference for Social Security — keep benefits and raise the payroll tax cap — addresses that program’s very modest long-term shortfall. There will be many people in the room with you who want to make these cuts anyway, Mr. President. Despite the great benefits that have flowed to the wealthiest among us, they’ll want to protect the wealthy from paying the same payroll tax rate as police officers or nurses. These differences of opinion are unavoidable in a democracy. But you’ll have an opportunity to show the nation how its leaders can differ with courtesy and grace — and in this case, with a bipartisan majority at your back. You’ll be able explain that you’re not defending Social Security because you speak for Democrats, but because you speak for all Americans. While you’re at it, you can also defend the principles of trust and honesty. Too many politicians and pundits have said that the government’s bonds, which cover the money it has borrowed from Social Security’s Trust Fund, is just an “IOU.” That’s not true. And you can remind them that even if it were true, we’re an honorable people who make good on our IOUs. There isn’t a single argument being thrown around today about Social Security that hasn’t been around for 75 years: “Ponzi scheme,” too many old people and too few workers — you name it, we’ve heard it before. That’s why President Eisenhower’s bipartisan panel refuted them all back in the 1950s. Ike’s experts defended our shared hopes and dreams back then, and now it’s our generation’s turn. You also said that in a time of tragedy “we reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent… Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us?” What better way of expressing gratitude to all of our aging parents than by ensuring their financial security? That’s an ideal way to “expand our moral imaginations, listen to each other more carefully, sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.” Our moral imaginations shouldn’t be limited to slanted ideas cooked up in think tanks and parroted by pundits and consultants. Sometimes listening to one another, really listening, means we have to silence the clamor of Beltway chatter. Our instincts for empathy can be sharpened by the image of an elderly woman in a small urban apartment, struggling to get by on $800 per month. They should direct our thoughts to the 68-year-old janitor whose back aches after half a century spent pushing a broom. They should call us to remember the waitress whose feet can no longer support her for eight hours, and whose bent fingers can no longer scribble on her order pad. We’ve been bound by shared dreams since the country was founded. Social Security and Medicare turned some of those dreams into reality. Let’s not turn them back into dreams. Mr. President, this year’s State of the Union will help to shape your legacy. That legacy can be one of real bipartisanship. You can bring us together as a people by expressing our shared commitment to Social Security. That’s a commitment that binds Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and even Tea Party followers together in a common bond. Reach out for that bond. Express it. Build on it to create a new American consensus – a consensus for fairness, a consensus for security, a consensus for growth and jobs. Americans are united on the issue of Social Security, and the state of that union is sound. At least in one small way, we’re already bound together in our hopes and dreams. In a wounded moment, that bond can help us heal. Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Investors Fell In Love With Bonds Again In 2010

January 12, 2011

BOSTON — Mutual fund investors were buying stock funds at the end of 2010. But they were trying to avoid risk through most of the year, as bond funds took in money at the second-fastest annual rate ever. A tally Wednesday by industry consultant Strategic Insight shows investors added $222 billion more to bond funds than they withdrew. The record for money flowing into bond funds came in 2009, when investors added a net $350 billion. That followed a year when stocks suffered their worst decline since the Great Depression. Investors responded by seeking the relative safety of bonds. But with the economic recovery gaining momentum, fear of rising interest rates has recently cut into bond returns. Two-thirds of the bond fund categories tracked by Lipper Inc. suffered losses in the fourth quarter, as rate fears sent bond prices down and yields up. Investors typically sell off when prices fall, and December was no exception. Investors pulled a net $24 billion from bond funds last month, according to Strategic Insight. It was the biggest monthly movement out of bond funds since the peak of the financial crisis in October 2008. It was also the second consecutive month that more money was pulled out of bond funds than came in. About $1 billion exited in November. But Strategic Insight isn’t ready to declare that investors are ready to give up on bonds. Research Director Avi Nachmany said his New York-based company still expects demand to rebound in the first half of this year. That’s because many categories of bonds offer attractive yields compared with those of bank accounts and money-market funds, which are near record lows. “For some, the focus on income and risk aversion will persist through 2011,” Nachmany said. Many bond investors nevertheless embraced risk last month. Flows were positive for high-yield funds, which hold bonds that typically earn high rates of return, with greater risk of volatility. Those funds returned an average 3.5 percent last quarter, according to Lipper. That compares with an 11.4 percent fourth-quarter gain for the average U.S. stock fund. With such strong returns, flows into stock funds have recently begun to shift. For the full year, investors added a net $23 billion into stock funds. Yet despite an average 17 percent return last year for the average U.S. stock fund, they weren’t attracting money. They saw nearly $49 billion flow out. The overall flow of money was positive for stock funds because investors were putting their money in foreign stock funds, which drew in a net $72 billion. There’s been a flow of money into foreign stock funds for seven straight months. This reflects the stronger economic growth prospects many investors see in the world’s emerging markets, and a desire to diversify portfolios beyond U.S. financial markets. Still, there are signs that U.S. investors are warming up to domestic stocks. Through most of 2010, the rate at which cash was pulled out of U.S. stock funds slowed. For one week in late December, flows into U.S. stock funds even turned positive, according to the Investment Company Institute, an industry association. “It is clear that stock investor sentiment is slowly improving,” Nachmany said.

Read the full article →

Mark Engler: The Rich Can Already Call It a Year

January 7, 2011

Well, 2011, it’s been nice. But I think we’ve worked enough already. In any case, we’ve already made enough money. Time to call it a year. This is a ridiculous idea, right? Yet, as the Canadian Financial Post reported at the beginning of the week, “Top CEOs will have earned average workers’ full annual pay by 2:30 p.m. today.” The “today” in question was Monday, January 3, the first business day of the year. Here’s their explanation: Canada’s best-paid chief executives earned 155 times the average income earner during the darkest days of the recession, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said in a report Monday. Declaring that those 100 chief executives were “recession proof,” the think tank said they earned an average of $6.6 million in 2009 compared with $42,988 for the average Canadian. That means by 2:30 p.m. Monday, the first working day of the year, those CEOs will have earned the full year’s wage of the average Canadian, said Hugh Mackenzie, the author’s study and research associate for the centre. I’m not sure how the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives , when producing this brilliant bit of PR, crunched the numbers to come up with the exact time of 2:30 p.m. on January 3. However, their general point stands. And, in fact, the situation is even worse in the United States. Here, as the AFL-CIO has tracked , the average compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO is $9.25 million per year. Even if we grant that these businesspeople are workaholics putting in seventy-hour workweeks and taking no vacation, that comes to $2,541 for every hour they labor. Calling it quits after the first week of January, these American CEOs would each be able to take home an annual income of over $177,000. Whether the world would be worse off if they did check out for the rest of the year is a debatable point. As CNN Money has noted , not all of the companies run by the top-twenty-earning CEOs were even profitable. For example, in 2009 Johnson & Johnson experienced its first annual sales decline in seventy-six years, yet its CEO, William Weldon, was nevertheless paid $22.8 million , in large part for making “difficult personnel decisions.” (Translation: firing as many as 8,000 workers.) Of course, even these Fortune 500 CEOs are not making money very quickly by the standards of the financial sector. The New York Times reported that the top twenty-five hedge fund managers made $25.3 billion between them in 2009, with George Soros personally raking in $3.3 billion. That’s $8.2 million per day. It goes without saying that, while the incomes of the rich may be “recession proof,” that is not the case for the wages of the rest of us. But a lot of people don’t realize that this is not just a result of the recession of the past couple years. Over the last several decades, as earnings at the very top have skyrocketed, incomes for those outside of the top 20 percent have been basically stagnant, with productivity gains not translating into wage increases . And we are working ever more hours just to stay afloat. I have written a couple times before about Take Back Your Time Day , which takes place on October 24 each year. The notion behind this holiday is that if working hours in the United States were on par with those in Germany, the Netherlands, or Norway, then, come October 24, we’d be able to take the rest of the year off. If you don’t want to use those other countries as points of comparison, that date could be adjusted. Economist Juliet Schor explains that “the average worker [in the U.S. was] putting in 204 more hours in 2006 than in 1973.” That’s a full five weeks of extra work per year. If Americans just worked the same amount they did in the early 1970s, we’d be able to finish up our working year on about November 25. This would mean turning the entire month of December into a glorious annual sabbatical. Or we could spread the free time out over the entire year. (Three Fridays off per month, anyone?) The result: a far more reasonable balance between work, family, and leisure — a standard of life that used to be widely enjoyed in this country. Certainly, that’s not as sweet as being able to take your hard-earned week’s pay of $177,000 and clocking out from now until 2012. But it’s something the rest of us can dream of — and demand. Cross-posted from the “Arguing the World” blog at Dissent magazine.

Read the full article →

‘Give It Back For Jobs’ Lets Affluent Return Tax Cuts

December 30, 2010

For affluent Americans outraged by the fiscal and social consequences of tax cuts handed to them by President George W. Bush and recently extended for two more years, a trio of similarly dismayed academics has furnished a way for them to put their money where their mouth is. Their new website, giveitbackforjobs.org , invites high-income Americans to calculate the value of their tax cut under the extension and then pledge to donate that money directly to charities that the site says encourage “fairness, economic growth, and a vibrant middle class.” The site doesn’t accept contributions directly, but links users to places where they can. The site has been engineered to offer Americans who view the tax cuts as misguided a means to personally direct dollars toward countering the effects, while also registering a protest for broad policies that have exacerbated economic inequality. “It’s like civil disobedience,” said Daniel Markovits, a professor at Yale Law School, and one of the three academics behind the initiative. “You’re not committing a crime, but the government says, ‘This is what you should give,’ and you’re saying, ‘No, I should give more.’” President Obama took office last year on a pledge to end the tax cuts lavished by his predecessor on the wealthiest American households. But he agreed to continue the cuts via a controversial compromise with Republicans in Congress in which he gained an extension of emergency unemployment benefits, while also securing the renewal of lowered taxes for middle-class households. The deal landed as a bitter disappointment to liberal economists, who have assailed it for perpetuating the conditions that have led millions of ordinary Americans to take on impossible debts in recent years to finance housing, health care and education while their wages have stagnated. The tax cuts accelerated a long-term flow of increased shares of national wealth to the most affluent households, leaving smaller and smaller slices for everyone else Give It Back For Jobs aims to narrow the gap by effectively mimicking the tax policy that would have been in place had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire. Had the tax cuts gone off the books, more dollars would have flowed into federal coffers, making more money available to pursue job-creating public works projects and aid to now ailing states and local communities. The new website seeks to compensate for those lost tax revenues by inviting wealthy Americans to voluntarily contribute equivalent funds to social service groups that are focused on aiding people contending with the weak economy. “It’s private collective action that builds upon itself and, in effect, amounts to a kind of shadow tax policy,” said Robert Hockett, a professor at Cornell Law School, and another force behind the site. “It’s a partial representation of what a proper tax policy would be.” The website grows out of a similar effort that Markovits and Hockett unleashed five years ago in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, called givebackthetaxcut.org, which raised around $250,000 in relief aid. They viewed that disaster, and the dearth of help for people affected, as more than an accident: They saw it as the outgrowth of policies that have favored the wealthy while leaving middle class and poor Americans to fend for themselves. “When Katrina struck, we were both sort of astonished,” said Hockett. “It was a humanly facilitated disaster. It seemed it was no coincidence that the failure coincided with unbelievably gigantic tax cuts.” That site employed a tax calculator, much like the one on giveitbackforjobs.org, and it, too, invited people to donate money what they would have been giving the government absent the Bush tax cuts. Ironically, that calculator was designed by none other than Peter Orszag, who headed Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, and recently took a senior executive position at the Wall Street goliath Citibank . He played no role in developing the new site. “He’s busy with other things now,” Hockett said wryly. For the new site, Hockett and Markovits joined forces with Jacob Hacker, a Yale political scientist who has written frequently about economic inequality and the strains of the middle class. “The 2001 tax cuts were a really terrible policy,” Hacker said. “They were really skewed towards the rich in the 20 years in which the rich got much richer. To sustain that policy in the face of majority popular support for ending tax cuts for the rich is a pretty egregious example of what I call ‘winner-take-all’ politics.” The tax cuts will give about $300,000 to taxpayers in the top one-tenth of one percent of the bracket, or those making $2 million in annual income and above. The median tax cut is about $1,000. Far from a conduit for money to flow to social service groups, Give It Back For Jobs is pitched by its creators as a way to enable political action, while giving contributors the means of proving their convictions and sharing in a collective undertaking. “People are privately incredibly generous,” said Markovits. “There are a quite a few people who would like society as a whole to be juster, to let their private commitments be translated into a langauge that says, ‘We are in this together.’” The professors chose to give the money to charities in part as a rebuke of what they portray as an inadequate federal response to the long-running national economic crisis. “We’re trying to immediately and directly support programs the government ought to be doing,” said Markovits. They have opted to target organizations focused on expanding access to health care and housing, and those that train unemployed workers for new careers. “We wanted the categories to have an obvious connection with economic downturn,” said Hockett. Some view the site as more symbolic than substantive–a kind of feel-good effort that does not alter the real economic policies that have assailed the middle class and working poor. In this view, such policies can be changed only by the White House and Congress, and that will only happen through advocacy and effective political organization. “If you want to get anywhere with this agenda, you wont get anywhere by being nice,” said said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “It’s like going to a gunfight with an olive branch.” But the professors behind Give It Back For Jobs dismiss such criticisms, while asserting that they have realistic aims. “We don’t think this is suddenly going to raise all the money it would have raised if tax cuts on the wealthy had been allowed to expire,” said Markovits. Rather, he suggested, the new website may alter the national debate, raising awareness of the consequences of extending the tax cuts, and setting up conditions for a different policy trajectory in the years ahead. “If people took a cold shower for a moment, and got a little bit more reflective, surely they would realize that one of the things that the funding of a government is for is to assist those who are suffering through no fault of their own,” said Hockett.

Read the full article →

Groupon Raises $500 Million

December 30, 2010

NEW YORK — Groupon Inc., the fast-growing Internet startup that offers local deals and discounts to members, has raised $500 million of the $950 million it is planning to collect in its latest financing round. The Chicago company said in a regulatory filing Thursday it plans to use up to $344.5 million of the proceeds to buy back shares from existing shareholders, including founder and CEO Andrew Mason. Groupon raised the money just a few weeks after Google Inc.’s attempt to buy the 2-year-old company for a reported $5 billion to $6 billion fell through. If it hadn’t, it would have been Google’s largest acquisition. Previous funding – $135 million – came from Mail.ru Group, also known as Digital Sky Technologies, a Russian Internet investment firm that also holds a stake in Facebook. Groupon employs about 3,000 people, about 1,000 more than the much-larger Facebook. Most of these people work in sales, dealing with local and national merchants who set up discount deals. This has some analysts questioning how easily Groupon can grow its business, since it needs to hire a lot of salespeople to set up deals. Groupon’s more than 35 million subscribers receive e-mails or posts on their Twitter or Facebook pages about daily bargains in their region, such as $40 worth of food at a restaurant for $20 in San Francisco, or $49 for $130 worth of yoga classes in Anchorage, Alaska. The deals only become active if enough people sign up for them, to make it worthwhile for the businesses. Groupon did not say who the investors were that took part in its offering, only that there were 33 of them. Venture capital data provider VC Experts estimates that if Groupon raises the full $950 million, it will be worth about $6.4 billion total.

Read the full article →

Patrice Peyret: Why you should care about hidden interchange fees in 2011

December 29, 2010

On December 16, 2010, The Federal Reserve Board proposed a new rule that would lower by as much as 84 percent the $16.2 billion in fees that merchants pay annually when you swipe your debit card at their cash registers. ( The Fed asked for public comments on the proposal by February 22, 2011 .) The idea is that merchants will save money and pass along savings to you. Immediately, large U.S. banks and credit card issuers attacked the proposed rules as a threat to their industry, a handout to merchants who get out of paying their fair share of money network costs, and a booby-prize for consumers who gain no assurance of savings but almost surely would face higher banking fees. See ” Debit Card Fee Cap Could Mean Higher Prices for Consumers ” Behind the proposed new rules and the arguments against them are some key questions: Why should you care? What are the real costs? Who should pay? Why Care? According to the Fed, debit card use in the United States now exceeds all other forms of noncash payments. The interchange fee that merchants pay when you use your debit card is largely hidden from you, but it funds a network of technology and services that ensure you can trust using your debit card without risking your bank account. Like all infrastructure, this network requires money to build, maintain, operate and improve. Banks will not operate these networks for free, so if merchants pay less, it’s likely that you will pay more, either directly or indirectly, to use your debit cards. What does it cost to operate? The new Fed proposal caps the fee for running a debit card transaction at between 7 and 12 cents, a huge reduction from the average of 44 cents per transaction charged currently. That’s the Fed’s estimate of costs. The real costs are much harder to measure. These technology costs are fairly easy to estimate. No physical money actually moves when you swipe your debit card at the store. Only digital information gets exchanged between the merchant’s bank and your bank. In this way, the debit card network is kind of like the wireless phone network that carries text messages from phone to phone. What’s difficult to measure is the cost of security, reliability and exception handling. If money was lost or misrouted at the same rate as text messages, we would all be stashing hard cash under our mattresses. For reliability, the banks use debit networks operated by Visa, MasterCard and others, and they are good. Even during the week before Christmas, the networks route card transactions from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in under two seconds. More importantly, the network operators handle problems. You can’t unsend a text message, but you can reverse a debit payment. And you can get help on the phone when you need it. Although banks’ customer service isn’t always perfect, the rules and processes for handling mistaken or fraudulent card transactions work well enough for us to trust the banks with our money. The reason it’s hard to measure support costs when there’s a problem is that no fewer than three parties are involved: the merchant’s bank, your bank, and the payment network in the middle. Unlike the decreasing costs of transmitting bits of information across digital networks, the human-intensive costs of managing fraud risks and providing customer support have increased. Factoring the human costs across three levels of intermediaries is very nearly impossible. Who should pay? And how much? It’s good to pry open the debit card to improve transparency and foster more competition. But I was surprised that the Fed picked such a low range — 7 to 12 cents — as an interchange cap while admitting that it had not considered all aspects of the problem (such as customer support costs) and was not sure if it would serve the interest of consumers. The proposed cap is not a good first step. It will surely ignite an endless debate by less-than-candid incumbents about why the chosen number is wrong. It also avoids the question of who will pay the debit network operating costs if the merchants don’t do so? The banks aren’t interested in losing money, so it’s reasonable to assume the consumers would pick up the merchant’s share by some means or another. I’m curious about a different approach based on positive pricing and transparency. Today, banks use a form of negative or “penalty pricing” in which they offer you “free” checking accounts and debit cards but make money from your mistakes in the form of overdraft fees and such. Instead of penalizing you for mistakes, what if banks offered a menu of services that you chose to pay for upfront, including a small price for using your debit card? You could shop around for the best deals and know you’re not going to get hit with hidden fees. It would help fund the cost of operating debit networks while relieving merchants — many of them small, local stores – of bearing the full cost of the network. There are complications to a positive pricing approach, but overall, letting you see what you’re actually paying and giving you the choices must be better than meddling with behind-the-scenes fees in ways that you’ll probably end up paying for anyway. Disclosure: I am CEO of Plastyc , a company that offers prepaid card services (prepaid cards are a sub-category of debit cards). My company is not directly affected by the proposed interchange rules, which only apply to prepaid card issuers with assets of $10 billion or more.

Read the full article →

Profs Start Website For Rich To Give Back Tax Cuts

December 29, 2010

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Upset the federal government recently extended tax cuts for the rich, three professors at Yale and Cornell universities have created a website that encourages wealthy Americans to give their tax savings to charities and send a political message in the process. The professors started giveitbackforjobs.org to allow Americans “who have the means” to calculate what their tax cut would be and donate that amount to a charity. “Extending the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans is frankly unconscionable,” Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits said Wednesday. With the website’s help, “donors can pledge their money to support the kinds of programs that will help families, create jobs, and set the country moving toward a just prosperity,” the professors said in announcing the initiative. Markovits, Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, and Cornell law professor Robert Hockett started the campaign. Hacker is co-author of “Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.” The three recommend giving to groups such as Habitat for Humanity, Children’s Aid Society and Salvation Army that they say promote fairness, economic growth and a strong middle class. They say the contributions could replicate good government policy and, in effect, draft the government as a funding partner when the donation is tax deductible. “The collective giving together becomes almost a kind of shadow fiscal policy,” Markovits said. Congress approved the tax package and President Barack Obama signed it into law this month. It retains Bush-era tax rates for all taxpayers, including the wealthiest, a provision Obama and congressional liberals opposed. Proponents of the tax cuts argued that raising taxes in a fragile economy would hurt small businesses and job growth. The professors say other features of the tax package, including a payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment benefits, are acceptable but the overall package does not go far enough to help the middle class and doesn’t expect enough of those who can afford to give the most. Markovits said an earlier effort that encouraged taxpayers to donate their tax cuts to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina resulted in about $250,000 in pledges.

Read the full article →

Mark Blyth: The Real Reason That the Bailouts May Not Work

December 29, 2010

A recent WSJ article on banks in trouble focused on the fact that many of these banks were TARP recipients: QED, TARP was bad and the bailouts didn’t work. While state bashing is nothing new in the pages of the WSJ , it’s worth remembering what the bailouts were actually designed to do: stop the global payments system freezing up. It was not designed to bailout some community lender in the West who got in over their heads in commercial real estate. It is also worth putting these prospective failures in perspective. The median size of these banks was $439 million. Compare that to the balance sheet of Bank of America and the combined $4.2 billion tied up in these banks is a drop in the bucket. Moreover, while 98 failing banks seem a lot, we should remember that between 1985 and 1992 2109 banks failed , so let’s not get too excited about this most recent spate of casualties. So why the focused attention on these relatively normal events? Perhaps the answer lies in the continuing campaign played so deftly by the banks and their allies to turn the largest ever private sector failure into a public sector failure, thereby getting themselves off the hook for the mess that they made. To take just two examples, the minority report of the Financial Crisis Commission blamed Fannie and Freddie for the crisis, despite the fact that the crisis hit over 20 countries and yet only one of them has Fannie and Freddie. Similarly, the global banking crisis has been turned into a crisis of profligate sovereigns, sidestepping the fact that the debt bloating states’ balance sheets are bailout costs and lost revenues, not runaway social programs. Mere facts, it seems, can’t compete with a good ideology. However, the WSJ may be more right than they know. The bailouts may not ultimately work, but for an entirely different set of reasons. To see why it’s worth having a look at two pieces, one by John Cassidy in the New Yorker Magazine and one by Andy Haldane at the Bank of England . Taken together, they suggest that all may not be well going forward, despite the billions of dollars thrown at the banks: on a fundamental level, their business model may have run out of juice. Cassidy’s November New Yorker piece asks, “What Good is Wall Street?” If it significantly adds to capital formation, then the argument for compensation orders of magnitude beyond other sectors is somewhat justified. The problem lies in showing this, since doing so rests upon a series of counterfactuals that are hard to prove. For example, the existence of a $400 billion swaps market doesn’t mean that its absence would result in lower GDP growth. It does however mean lots of fees for those who arrange the swaps. Looking at the link between what banks do and capital formation, Cassidy notes that the part of Morgan Stanley that does link borrowers to savers and raise capital, traditional investment banking, delivered a mere 15 percent of 2009 revenues. For Citibank “about eighty cents of every dollar in revenues came from buying and selling securities, while just 14 cents on every dollar came from raising capital for companies.” As such, the claim that these institutions are doing “God’s work,” AKA capital formation, seems to skate on rather thin ice. Andy Haldane, executive director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England, similarly set out to measure the contribution of the financial sector to growth. Is it a productivity miracle or a statistical mirage? Haldane concludes that it’s a mirage, but what is of most interest is how he dissects the underlying business model of investment banking, which enables us to see Cassidy’s numbers in a different light. First of all, you give up on customers and develop counterparties. That is, you fatten your trading book, and to do that you need lots of different products to trade, hence the growth of complex and opaque securities. Second, you use said securities and the firm’s balance sheet to develop massive amounts of leverage so that even if the margins on each trade are thin, with enough volume you can earn a lot of cash. Finally, you ‘cover’ all this by writing deep out of the money options that give you a near risk free income stream: until it doesn’t. This is how banks actually make their money, until 2007, when it all went wrong. This raises two problems going forward. First of all, the revenues generated by this model are contingent upon some raw material going into the system as an input that one can profit from as the asset increases in value. Over the past twenty years those raw materials were equities and then real estate and then (briefly) commodities. The latter markets were too small and fragmented to pump this system, hence the 2006-7 boom and bust, and the former two and now either held up by massive amounts of free liquidity (equities) or are underwater (real estate). As such, it’s not clear that these engines of profitability can be effectively restarted. This is a worry since the bailouts were based upon two complimentary definitions of what this was a crisis of. For the Americans this was a crisis of liquidity. That is, the engine was sound; it’s just run out of oil (credit crunch) and with enough liquidity it will spontaneously restart (limited stimulus etc.) For the British, the engine blew a cylinder and it had to be rebuilt (12.5 percent of GDP as bank recapitalization), and with enough oil (liquidity) it will restart. But what if the raw material to feed these engines is no longer available? Then the business model as a whole may be in much more trouble than we think. Add to this the impending foreclosure mess really coming home in 2011-12 and the revenues may simply not be there anymore. TARP and associated programs worked. They saved the global payments system. That is what they were supposed to do. They were not supposed to save small-cap banks from their own investment decisions. They were also not designed to save a business model that may have run its evolutionary course.

Read the full article →

New Year’s Resolution: 84% Want To Find A New Job

December 29, 2010

New Year’s resolutions come in all shapes and sizes. From losing weight to spending less to finding a new job it seems everyone has something they’d like to change. It seems the thing most people want to change this year, is their job . 84% of working individuals plan to find a new job in the new year, according to Manpower, a job-placement firm. That’s up a staggering 24% from last year. The change comes largely from the fact that people seem to simply be disappointed with their current positions, as wages have frozen, according to CNN Money . However, this doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a large number of available jobs. While the desire to change jobs may be powered in many cases by dissatisfaction with management, it may actually have more to do with money, according to The Street . Wages have grown marginally since the height of the recession ended, and many are looking for greater income. While unemployment was up at the end of 2010 , the outlook for 2011 looks better, and may afford many workers the opportunity to make career changes.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Best and Worst Investing Awards for 2010

December 29, 2010

We are coming to the end of 2010, which has been a very interesting year for investors. I thought this would be a good time to hand out the Best and Worst Investing Awards for 2010. I hope you will find them helpful as you formulate your investing strategy for next year and thereafter: 1. The best prediction : To Newsweek Magazine . It predicted the possibility the Dow would hit 12,000, which is close enough. 2. The worst prediction : This was a tough one because there were so many contenders. I give the nod to Mohamed El-Erian, who predicted stocks would tank in January, 2010. Dr. El-Erian has credibility as chief executive of Pimco, overseeing over $1 trillion in assets. Hard to believe his predictions have no more merit than those of an astrologer. 3. Best TV media for sound investment advice : CNN because it does the best job of providing reliable information without encouraging bad investor behavior. It’s sad there isn’t a single program on TV that tells investors how to invest intelligently. I am working hard to change that. 4. Worst TV media for sound investment advice : CNBC is the hands down winner. An entire network devoted to instilling fear and uncertainty and encouraging stock picking, market timing and fund manager picking. The network is a shill for the securities industry. Its viewers are the hapless victims of its programming. 5. Investors’ Best Friend : Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee assigned to recover assets from victims of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. His tireless efforts have recovered almost one-third of the $20 billion in losses, and he is hot on the trail of the balance. 6. Investors’ Worst Enemy : The feeder funds, banks and other institutions who ignored the obvious red flags indicating Madoff was a fraud and accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks for investing their clients money with him. While some have done the right thing and made their investors whole (the Bank of Kuwait is a laudable example), many others have lawyered up and are engaged in a scorched earth defense of their indefensible conduct. 7. Best source for intelligent investment advice : The hands-down winner is the Fama/French forum where noted economists Eugene Fama and Kenneth French dispense investing wisdom, in an easy-to-understand format. Essential viewing for all investors. 8. Worst source for intelligent investment advice : Jim Cramer’s Mad Money , where Cramer fools investors nightly into believing he has some special insight into the direction of the markets and the ability to pick stock winners, although there is precious little evidence he (or anyone else) has this expertise. 9. Best Financial Product : Exchange Traded Funds which, when used correctly, can permit investors to invest intelligently, at low cost. Unfortunately, they are more often misused to pick sectors and trade frequently, which reduces returns. 10. Worst Financial Product : Another tough one. Hedge funds, variable annuities, equity-index annuities and private equity funds all qualify. However, the award goes to Principal Protected Notes. Their name got them the nod. The principal is not protected against issuer default. They have excessive fees and the upside is grossly overstated. Their complexity makes it very difficult for investors to understand how they are being ripped off and why much simpler alternatives would be superior investments. This combination of qualities typifies the conduct of many brokers and other “investment professionals”, and earned this product the award, but it was very close. 11. Most intelligent investing phrase : “It’s not different this time.” Because it wasn’t. 12. Dumbest investing phrase : A tie between the “new normal” and “buy and hold are dead.” There is no “new normal” and those who bought and held came through the crash and subsequent recovery with flying colors. 14. ( I know it should be 13, but I’m superstitious ). Most appreciative author/blogger : This was an easy one. Me. I get a tremendous amount of fan mail from readers of my books and my blogs (Okay, there is the occasional hate mail from a disgruntled broker). My books had stellar sales in 2010. It’s particularly encouraging to hear that many of you give my books to your children so they won’t make the same mistakes you did. I can’t answer everyone who contacts me and tells me how my advice has impacted them, but I do read every e-mail. I deeply appreciate your encouragement and support. I view it as a privilege to be able to dispense sound investing advice to such a wide audience. To all of you and your families, I wish you a prosperous New Year! The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Grow Revenue Before You Seek VC Funding

December 27, 2010

– Russell Rothstein is the founder and CEO of business social networking site SalesSpider . The views expressed are his own. – Small businesses owners want to grow their companies, but their ability to expand operations is limited by their own profitability or otherwise lack of capital. Faced with this dilemma, many turn to venture capital firms (VCs), which embrace high-risk, high-growth startups and offer the money and management they desperately need to meet the growing demand for their product. Money may not make the world go ’round, but it certainly helps when financing a high-growth new business venture. And there are no shortage of VCs to turn to. But while many small businesses rely on VC funding, few CEOs really think about the strings attached to all that cash, and what it means to their company and customers. VC funding may appear less desirable in comparison with revenue-based funding, for example. Consider the differences between the two: 1. VCs dilute the startup’s equity every time they invest and want board representation. Clients, aka revenue, don’t want equity; they want results. 2. VCs want a certain level of control over a startup’s financing. Clients want control over their financing. 3. If VCs invest more than once (e.g., at Stage 1 and Stage 2), they start to dilute the founders and early stakeholders to a point that they no longer own the company. Clients who buy more than once are satisfied — and become key references for gaining new clients. 4. VCs are convinced the only measure of success is a very large exit. Clients believe success is finding a supplier that helps them solve a problem. They may want a startup to be successful, but not necessarily very large. 5. The more VCs you get, the harder it is to attract VCs. The more clients you get, the easier it is to attract other clients. 6. VCs don’t really help you get clients, unless they own the client. The more clients you get, the easier it is to get VCs. 7. Sometimes you need VCs, but you always need clients. 8. Clients are afraid of you flipping your company. VCs insist on it. 9. Banks often lend money based on client receivables with low rates of interest. VCs have clauses where they lend you money, but it’s usually convertible to equity. 10. You can usually keep most clients happy if you provide good service. VCs tend to always want more. Certainly, VCs play an important role in maintaining a vibrant economy and fostering the entrepreneurial spirit, but VC funding is not the right choice for every startup at every financing stage. Weigh your options before turning to a VC, and determine the level of involvement clients play in supporting your company and its future. Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Education For We, The People Or For Private Profit?

December 24, 2010

In his press conference this week President Obama said the economic focus is no longer saving the economy from crisis, but “jumpstarting” it to make a dent in unemployment. He listed education as one of the pillars of that effort. Later in the press conference he talked about making colleges and universities being open not just to people who are well-to-do, but to all of us. Progressives For A We, The People Economy Progressives believe that a We, the People economy works best when we act as a community where “we are all in this together,” and watch out and take care of each other. We mutually benefit from this approach: the better off we all are, the better off we all are . Conservatives, on the other hand, believe we should all be on our own, looking out for only ourselves and our families, and it is up to each of us, alone, to take “personal responsibility” for our own success. Our differing approaches to education reflect these different philosophies. Progressives believe that education is good for all of us, and should be available to all of us. We believe that the economy does better when more of us can receive a good education, whether this brings a vocational or advanced degree, in a community college or a university. We try to enact policies that make this education affordable for everyone. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that “the government” (We, the People) has no business helping people. So they resist providing free public or university education. They call this “socialism.” And so America’s conflict continues, one side asking for public investment in all of us for the long-term benefit of We, the People while the other side tries to harvest the public good for the short-term benefit of a few. Compromise With Conservatives A compromise of sorts has existed in recent decades in which the government helps students get loans, enabling them to go to more expensive schools. But these loans increasingly leave students with a very high debt to pay off after they graduate. In recent years students are graduating with more student loan debt than they can reasonably be expected to pay off. Result: Increasing Debt CNBC reports: Student loans leave crushing debt burden The cost of a college education is rising faster than the cost of medical care and as much as three times as fast as consumer prices in general. But that’s just the beginning of the price of admission. This is the story of a debt crisis few are talking about. Americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards — a debt fast approaching $1 trillion with no end in sight. Please read the entire CNBC report on the crushing debt load that students are taking on, just to get an education that will help our economy. Here is a clip of the video available at the link: USA Today reports: Student loan debt exceeds credit card debt in USA , Total student loan debt exceeds total credit card debt in this country, with $850 billion outstanding, according to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com, websites that provide information about student aid and scholarships. Consumers owe about $828 billion in revolving credit, including credit card debt, according to seasonally adjusted numbers in a report on July credit from the Federal Reserve. Result: Increasing Defaults With the increasing debt load and the resulting crushing monthly payments come increasing defaults. From the Dept. of Education, Student Loan Default Rates Increase , “This data confirms what we already know: that many students are struggling to pay back their student loans during very difficult economic times. That’s why the Administration has expanded programs like income based repayment and Pell grants to help students in financial need,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. And, of course, along with the for-profit privatization of what should be a public function, and the compromise of federal help for loans comes the companies profiting from federal dollars. “The data also tells us that students attending for-profit schools are the most likely to default,” Duncan continued. “While for-profit schools have profited and prospered thanks to federal dollars, some of their students have not. Far too many for-profit schools are saddling students with debt they cannot afford in exchange for degrees and certificates they cannot use. This is a disservice to students and taxpayers, and undermines the valuable work being done by the for-profit education industry as a whole,” Duncan continued. Result: Increasing Quick-Buck For-Profit Scams Along with increasing and crushing debt and defaults another problem has cropped up. Just like with the housing bubble, the private predators have arrived to prey on the public. Private schools like Kaplan University are increasingly scamming their students with schemes reminiscent of the worst of the housing bubble, running up loan debt greater than any job they would ever get could pay, even hitting them with excessive fees and outright fraudulent charges. A Huffington Post report of their investigation of Kaplan University, At Kaplan University, ‘Guerilla Registration’ Leaves Students Deep In Debt , exposes Kaplan’s practice of “guerilla registration” in which they register students and charge them tuition for classes they don’t want or take, even in some cases after they have withdrawn from the school. And then they send the debt collectors after them for the money. Despite having attended only two online sessions, Castillo had remained officially enrolled at Kaplan for nearly a year after her withdrawal. Far from an aberration, Castillo’s experience typifies the results of a practice known informally inside Kaplan as “guerilla registration”: academic advisors have long enrolled students in classes they never take, without their consent and sometimes even after they have sought to withdraw from the university, in order to maximize the company’s revenues, according to interviews with former employees. Please read the whole Huffington Post report , there is much, much more there. Kaplan University, by the way, is owned by The Washington Post company. Speaking of Kaplan , this is also in the news: NY Times, E.E.O.C. Sues Kaplan Over Hiring , Sending a sharp warning to employers nationwide, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Kaplan Higher Education Corporation on Tuesday, accusing it of discriminating against black job applicants through the way it uses credit histories in its hiring process. . . . In the E.E.O.C.’s suit, which was filed in federal district court in Cleveland, the agency said that since at least January 2008, Kaplan had rejected job applicants based on their credit history, with a “significant disparate impact” on blacks. . . . The E.E.O.C. typically brings discrimination cases only when it is convinced that serious abuse has occurred. Resources: Demos: Student Loans and Student Loan Debt , links to Demos resources and research on this issue. The Project On Student Debt This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Will Banks and JP Morgan Chase Be More Ethical in the Coming Year?

December 24, 2010

Tis’ the season to be jolly. Er.. if you’re a Wall Street banker, that is, where billions in end-of-year bonuses are about to rain down like manna from heaven. Wall Street is the one place in America where the economic downturn has not reached. Over the holiday period flashy Ferraris will be fired up and driven off showroom floors. The Hamptons will emerge from a deep winter thaw, warmed by the fires of credit cards working at such a feverish pace that plastic will be hard-pressed not to melt. Oh yes, happy days are here again. If only the prophet Amos were alive to see it, he might have proclaimed, “Let champagne flow like a river; Don Perignon like a mighty spring.” King David would likewise have cheered, “Yay, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of unemployment, I shall fear no recession, for my government bailouts are with me… My cash runneth over.” OK, ok. So I sound a little bit envious. I confess. But only a little. I do not begrudge the success of my Wall Street brothers. Not because I have mastered jealousy but because I make a living counseling people whose lives are in crisis. And I’ve discovered that the only thing that buys happiness on this earth is a life lived as a blessing to others. Excessive consumption is naught by a manifestation of the black hole at our center and the human need to fill it with an endless supply of adult toys (OK, calm down. I mean, of course, the more respectable, if somewhat infantile, adult toys of the car, yacht, and plane variety). Not that there aren’t many Wall Street bankers who fill their lives with virtue rather than Hermes. Many of my former Oxford students run hedge funds and work on the street. The majority of them make money to give it away to the needy around the world and support their families in dignity. They reject conspicuous consumption, live faith-based lives, and are communally engaged. But they might just be the exception that proves the rule. There can be little doubt that the success of the banking industry is critical to the success of the overall American economy. But that success dare not be made off the backs of hard-working Americans. Let them Wall Street traders be paid a king’s ransom. Let them eat cake. But when government bailouts are chiefly responsible for their astronomical profits, then they better make darn sure that the spigot is not suddenly turned off for desperate homeowners who need modifications to stay in their homes. I used to have a much higher opinion of Wall Street and indeed, as I wrote above, many of my closest friends are bankers. But a series of unfortunate incidents soured me, nearly all of them with JP Morgan Chase and its subdivision Bear Stearns. I have earlier written of Bear Stearns’ losing about forty percent of my retirement savings and then trying to triple charge me with fees when another trader moved the money into mutual funds. Wow. You’d think that after everything my wife and I had been through they would at least not try and gouge me. I shared how an old and influential friend at the bank then told me that any attempt to recover the paltry $3900 I had requested, amid losses of tens of thousands, due to consequences of the triple-charging on the part of the young trader, would be labeled extortion. Bigger wow! If you complain they threaten you? Nobody likes to be threatened or bullied so I had no choice but to sue Bear Stearns. I have tried to settle the suit. Bear is offering a pittance. Still I indicated a willingness to accept the small sum to simply put the matter behind me. This was never about money but about a regular person showing Wall Street that they can’t simply push us around. But the draconian confidentiality terms Bear is demanding is making even a small settlement difficult. As a writer, broadcaster, and columnist, I talk about the state of the economy and the state of our banks as an important barometer of the overall health of our nation’s values. And it seems to me that rather than large institutions like Bear Stearns try to gag people from being critical, especially when it is the only remedy available to us given our weakness in taking on multi-billion dollar institutions, it is better to correct their inner culture to act fairly and ethically in the first place. The New York Times Magazine recently ran a cover story that seemed like a puff piece on JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon entitled, “America’s Least-Hated Banker.” (That’s what passes for a compliment for bankers today.) I would like to believe that he’s a good guy. Perhaps he is the genius they say he is (though I was startled to see writer Roger Lowenstein disclose halfway through the piece that “my mother is friendly with Dimon’s parents.” I kind of wondered why he was selected him to write the profile.) But to prove it, Dimon must demonstrate that he is changing the culture at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Chase and that he gets that while it’s nice to make bucket loads of money and afford the luxuries of life, it’s even more important to uphold the highest ethical standards while doing so. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is founder of This World: The Values Network, an organization dedicated to promoting universal Jewish values in the culture. The international best-selling author of 24 books, his most recent work is “Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Read the full article →

Fantastic Friday: Will Christmas Eve Shoppers Set Spending Record?

December 24, 2010

NEW YORK — It’s Black Friday, The Sequel. Stores are rolling out deals and expect to be swimming in shoppers on Christmas Eve as stragglers take advantage of a day off work. For retailers, the last-minute rush caps the best year since 2007, and possibly ever. With Christmas falling on a Saturday this year, Friday is a holiday for most U.S. workers. That lets shoppers hit the stores first thing in the morning. “I’m calling it Fantastic Friday, because I really do think it’s going to be one of the busiest days of the year,” said Marshal Cohen, chief fashion industry analyst with researcher NPD Group. A strong Christmas Eve would round out a surprisingly successful holiday season for retailers. The National Retail Federation predicts that holiday spending will reach $451.5 billion this year, up 3.3 percent over last year. That would be the biggest year-over-year increase since 2006, and the largest total since spending hit a record $452.8 billion in 2007. A strong finish could even give 2010 the crown. While both are heavy shopping days, Christmas Eve draws a different breed of buyer than Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving and the unofficial start to the holiday shopping season. “Those who get up and brave the cold on Black Friday are usually looking for hot items, not only to buy gifts but to score something for themselves,” said Kathy Grannis, a spokeswoman for the National Retail Federation. “They’re planners, and they map out what they want to buy.” Shoppers who come out on Christmas Eve, on the other hand, were either waiting for the biggest discounts or they didn’t have the money to spend earlier, she said. Or they just tend to dilly-dally. While many Black Friday shoppers relish the hunt, last-minute buyers are harried and focused on getting things done. And true to stereotype, they are mostly men, said Dan Jasper, spokesman for Mall of America in Bloomington, Minn. Accordingly, stores push men’s and women’s sweaters in their circulars, while shoes and children’s apparel take a back seat. Jewelry also tends to be a top last-minute gift item, though that category has been strong throughout the season. E-commerce has driven much of the holiday’s spending growth. For the season to-date, $28.36 billion has been spent online, a 12 increase over last year, according to research firm comScore. Online shoppers spent $900 million last weekend alone. Many people who postponed their shopping this year blame busy schedules. The number of hours U.S. workers are putting in at the office each week has been on the upswing since the official end of the recession in June 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That leaves less time for shopping during the week. Vivian Lowe, 34, works for an ad agency in Atlanta and didn’t start her shopping until Wednesday. “It just caught up with me this year,” she said. She spent Thursday at the Lenox Square Mall in Atlanta and plans to hit Target on Christmas Eve because she sees it as a one-stop shop. Procrastinators like Lowe shouldn’t hit too many snags. Store inventories are not as depleted as last year, when merchants scared about having too many leftovers saw some empty shelves near the end of the season. But shoppers are not seeing the 75-percent-off-everything fire sales that characterized the 2008 holiday. Still, many stores are offering discounts this week. Express’s store at the Manhattan Mall in midtown had a huge yellow sign in its storefront window promoting an “end of the season 50 percent sale” on selected items. Macy’s is offering 30 percent off some bags and jewelry, while the Gap is applying that markdown to everything in the store. At CVS, there are buy-two-get-one free deals on bath-and-body gift sets and discounts on a 7-inch LCD TV and DVD player combo. Ron and Lisa Johnson of Indianapolis came to Circle Center Mall Thursday morning just to buy boots for their 20-year-old daughter, Kaitlyn Shirar. Nearly four hours later, they sat on a bench with a pile of bags from Nine West, H&M and Forever 21. “We haven’t found anything that wasn’t on sale,” Lisa said. Retailers say shoppers have mostly stuck to a big lesson taught by the recession: using cash, not credit. Toward the end of the season, they pulled out the plastic a little more often, but that’s normal. Overall, analysts consider the increased spending a sign more consumers have paid down debt and have cash to spend. Besides sales, retailers are finding other ways to accommodate procrastinators. Many stores, including Best Buy Co., let shoppers order online and then pick up the merchandise at the store. Best Buy’s deadline to order on its website is 3 p.m. Christmas Eve, and most stores close at 6 p.m. Amy Adoniz, the store manager at Best Buy’s store in Union Square in Manhattan, said that as of midday Thursday, 16 people were in line to pick up items ordered on its website. 7-Eleven convenience stores, always handy in a pinch, will be open all day on Christmas and are expanding their gift-worthy offerings by stocking a broader selection of wines, hand-held games and stuffed animals. Toys R Us plans to keep its doors open until 10 p.m. Friday, but is taking a different tack from the discounters, raising prices on some popular toys to take advantage of shoppers’ desperation. It bumped up the prices of the Leapster Explorer hand-held learning device by $20 and the Nerf Stampede Blaster by $5, said Gerrick Johnson, a toy analyst at BMO Capital Markets. “Retailers are realizing that rather than give these toys away, they can actually make a profit on them,” Johnson said. If all else fails, shoppers will fall back on gift cards. Spending on the plastic vouchers is expected to reach nearly $25 billion this holiday season, 5 percent more than last year, according to the National Retail Federation. Michelle Jose, marketing manager for White Marsh Mall in White Marsh, Md., says that more than half of the mall’s gift card sales for the entire year are made in the last three days before Christmas and she expects “strong sales to finish up the holiday.” Ian McCarty, 26, who lives in Atlanta and works for Emory Healthcare, was finding good deals at Lenox Square Mall on Thursday, but had trouble finding the right sizes. He picked up a gift card at Gap and was on his way to Talbot’s to pick another one up for his mother. “It’s the easiest thing to do,” he said. ____ AP Retail Write Mae Anderson in Atlanta and AP Business Writer Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Blaming the Economy’s Victims for Economic Crimes

December 22, 2010

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF Blame the unions, blame the unemployed, blame loans to the poor, blame the government. As income and wealth increasingly go to a few at the top, public anger is directed at the economy’s victims. I am in a clinic all day participating in a medical study, so I was talking to one of the nurses. She brought up that California is in real trouble, is going broke, it’s a real mess. She says she doesn’t know what we’re going to do. She has heard that, “lots of states are going bankrupt. There is no money anymore.” So I asked her what we should do about it. She said it is because of the unions. “It’s just ridiculous. They want so much.” I asked if she follows the news closely, she said she does. “I watch the news a lot.” Some facts: California is famous for leading the country in a wave of anti-government tax-cutting and into Reaganism . We cut taxes an an anti-government ferver and increased prison spending in a law-and-order fever. Then the federal government cut taxes and increased military spending, leading to big deficits. Now we’re out of money to run the state government and the country is getting there, too. California’s problems have little or nothing to do with what state employees are paid, and a lot to do with tax cuts and people across the state not getting paid enough. Blaming The Unions This weekend CBS’ 60 Minutes joined the anti-worker chorus, blaming public employee unions for the problems faced by the states. Media Matters, in 60 Minutes’ one-sided, GOP-friendly report on state budgets describes the segment, In 2,600 words about state deficits, you won’t find the phrase “tax cuts.” Instead, CBS adopts the Republican framing that deficits are all about spending — frequently with loaded phrasing like “gold-plated retirement and health care packages.” And throughout the report, CBS allows Christie, New Jersey’s Republican governor, to launch attacks on unions and make unsupported claims about budget problems, all without ever challenging his assertions and without including substantive disagreement from Christie critics. … You’d never know from CBS’ report that a big part of the reason that “Christie and his predecessors” failed to make required contributions to the pension fund is that they decided to use the money for tax cuts instead. [emphasis added] Mike Hall at the AFL-CIO blog explains that New Jersey’s workers and pensions are not the problem, While politicians like Christie rail against the pensions public employees have secured through collective bargaining–painting them as overly generous golden parachutes, McEntee notes the average annual pension for an AFSCME member is $19,000, and the workers contribute 80 percent during their lifetime on the job. Tax cuts, income and wealth going to a few at the top, but the unions take the blame because they fight for a better life for working people. Blaming The Unemployed The unemployed and the checks they get are often blamed for their plight. They are called “lazy,” and it is even suggested the be tested for drugs . CAF graduate David Sirota, in Why the ‘Lazy Jobless’ Myth Persists The thesis undergirding all the rhetoric was summed up by conservative commentator Ben Stein, who insisted that “the people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities.” [. . .] The trouble, though, is that the whole narrative averts our focus from the job-killing trade, tax-cut and budget policies that are really responsible for destroying the economy. And this narrative, mind you, is not some run-of-the-mill distraction. The myth of the lazy unemployed is what duck-and-cover exercises and backyard nuclear shelters were to a past era–an alluring palliative that manufactures false comfort in the face of unthinkable disaster. Blaming The Poor And Government Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission are sabotaging the commission’s work, demanding that “Wall Street” and “deregulation” not appear anywhere in the report. They are refusing to participate , instead releasing a counter-report blaming the government, claiming We, the People forced the giant banks to give home loans to the poor , and blaming the poor for receiving those loans. What People Think People tend to think about what is put in front of them to think about. That’s why everyone goes to see a new movie on the first weekend instead of waiting until they can get good seats with no lines. Wall Street and the likes of the Chamber of Commerce understand this so they put scapegoats in front of the public to mask what they are doing. Right now there is a corporate/right campaign to blame working people for the problems they caused. Like 60 Minutes this weekend, the news sources are run by big corporations, and they have been saying over and over (and over and over) that unions and the unemployed and the poor and the government are the cause of the problems. (When was the last time you saw a union representative on TV, explaining the benefits of joining a union ?) And, naturally, after hearing these things over and over (and over and over), viewers like the nurse at the clinic I am in think they should blame the unions, the unemployed, the poor, the government, too. So much of the income and wealth are concentrating at the top. Taxes have been cut so far. The things our government does for us have been cut back so far. Working people’s wages have been stagnant for so long. But the blame right now is directed at the unions, the poor, the unemployed and our government: We, the People. As the AFL-CIO blog concludes , The long term solution to state and local fiscal challenges … is “a robust economy, one that is creating jobs and replenishing tax revenue.” To repeat: The long term solution to state and local fiscal challenges… is “a robust economy, one that is creating jobs and replenishing tax revenue.” Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Senate Kills Foreclosure Aid

December 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — Despite mounting evidence of big banks committing serious fraud in the foreclosure process, the U.S. Senate eliminated $35 million in legal aid to homeowners trying to keep their homes. The fund was wiped out in order to meet government spending caps advocated by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), but will likely end up costing taxpayers much more in the long run, as wrongful foreclosures burn through the balance sheets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The slashing of the foreclosure-assistance fund is just one casualty of Washington’s increasing bipartisan push to cut spending across the board. The $35 million fund was created by the Wall Street reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in July, but the Senate never took the additional necessary step of appropriating the money. Even if it had been appropriated, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week gave up on passing a budget for next year in the face of Republican opposition to earmarks . Although the dollar amount is tiny in comparison with other federal housing programs, legal aid funding is a critical to the foreclosure relief effort. Without hiring a good lawyer, it is extremely difficult for borrowers to successfully defend their homes against banks — even when banks are committing clear-cut violations. Recent reports suggest severe, nationwide problems with the mortgage system. A survey of 96 attorneys found that banks started foreclosure proceedings on 2,500 borrowers who were negotiating a loan modification. The survey was conducted by the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center. According to a Dec. 13 report by the Congressional Oversight Panel, Obama’s main foreclosure prevention initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), will reach less than one-fourth of the borrowers it was intended to. And for the lucky few that do get help, the process can require years of legal wrangling. Over 29,000 borrowers have been stuck in trial modifications awaiting permanent relief for at least one year, according to the COP. Under program rules, the trial period is supposed to last for 3 months. Millions of other homeowners have been improperly denied loan modifications, charged illegal fees, and even improperly evicted. But for the $35 million legal aid fund to ever do borrowers any good, Congress had to actually set aside money for the program. And the Senate Appropriations Committee never did. As rhetoric about allegedly out-of-control government spending heated up this year, both Obama and members of Congress began touting plans to freeze discretionary spending. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) even authored a bill that would have implemented a three-year freeze on spending levels. While the bill never passed, it made new initiatives like the foreclosure relief fund very difficult to get through the appropriations committee, according to Senate aides familiar with the battle. The committee decided to follow the Sessions-McCaskill limit despite the fact that it didn’t have the force of law. McCaskill, who does not serve on the Appropriations Committee, insisted that she was not to blame in an interview with The Huffington Post. “I’m not an appropriator, so I don’t participate in the process of prioritizing. So I can’t speak to the priorities that they decided were most important. Clearly, going to Sessions-McCaskill levels of spending, that was a modest cut in what had been submitted by the president. It’s still an increase over last year. So I’m trying to figure out why they had to cut a program if in fact this budget reflects an increase over last year’s spending, which it does, a little short of two percent,” said McCaskill. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, regretted the Senate failure. “We had a big fight in our committee and we won it to, to reauthorize $35 million and we’re hoping it gets appropriated,” he told HuffPost late last week. “I think McCaskill is wrong on these things. I understand she’s got some worries about her district, but she plays an unconstructive role in this,” said Frank. “These kind of restrictions on domestic spending with unlimited spending for the war — and you always have to talk about both — is a great mistake. And the liberal community’s got to focus more on Afghanistan, Iraq, NATO. NATO is a great drain on our treasury and serves no strategic purpose.” Frank said the overall deficit hysteria has tilted the debate. “The president plays into it with his freeze on domestic spending,” he said. “And particularly when you say we’re going to stick with where we are, how do you accommodate new things?” Critics say that targeting legal aid simply makes no sense in the context of the overall federal budget. “This is such a trivial sum — it’s what we spend on the military in about 20 minutes,” according to economist Dean Baker, co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. What’s more, by allowing borrowers to fight improper foreclosures, legal aid funding would almost certainly help ease taxpayer losses from fraudulent home seizures implemented by major banks. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs all provide federal guarantees for mortgages. When those mortgages sour, government agencies are usually better off working out a mortgage modification with a borrower than foreclosing. But government agencies do not connect with borrowers — instead, they rely on private sector banks to interact and negotiate on their behalf. Since the banks make money from charging fees and conducting foreclosures, critics allege that banks are improperly pushing borrowers into trouble — at taxpayers’ expense. Legal aid funding to help borrowers could help limit those losses. “We don’t know how many foreclosures this will end up preventing, but given that we are willing to spend over $100 billion a year in tax subsidies to support people owning a home, it certainly seems reasonable to spend $35 million a year — less than 0.04 percent of this amount — to give them the chance to stay in their home,” Baker said. Frank said that the fiscal argument is counterproductive and that legal help should be given to homeowners in foreclosure as a matter of social justice. “Let’s not make that argument. We don’t know and you don’t know,” he said. “I’m for the money because I think it’s a matter of social justice. Let’s not try to [make] up that we think it’s going to save money in the long run, which we don’t know. And that’s not why we’re doing it.” Regardless, banks clearly come out winners in the plan. Fewer borrowers fighting foreclosures results in more bank revenue from foreclosure fees, and lower expenses for the banks. “The mortgage servicing industry is broken and that the effects of that broken system are being felt by America’s homeowners,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. “If not for the tireless efforts of foreclosure attorneys, many families would have mistakenly lost their homes and the fraudulent and corrupt practices of the mortgage servicing industry may have never come to light.” The author of the legal aid provision, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) expressed frustration over the impasse in an interview with HuffPost, accusing the funds’ detractors of using budgetary gimmicks as an excuse to cut a program they didn’t support. “These funds are as important now as they were when we were trying to get them into the bill in the first place,” Watt said. “There were some people who didn’t want this fund all along. We had to work to get it in there, so it’s not surprising that they would try to come up with excuses to take it out.” Banks are likely to benefit from the death of the legal aid package, as borrowers find themselves financially unable to challenge improper fees and foreclosures. But the fund’s defeat is doubly unfortunate for struggling homeowners thanks to last week’s defeat of a separate legal aid bill in the House. The U.S. Treasury Department had refused to allow funds for the Wall Street bailout to be spent on legal aid for borrowers, citing a lack of legal authority. That decision came under fire from COP panelist Damon Silvers during a Dec. 16 hearing. “When hedge funds get money under [the bailout], I believe they get to pay for lawyers, and it puzzles me that a vast amount of TARP money has been expended on legal counsel for the benefit, obviously, of the government. It seems as though lawyers are understood to be a necessary and essential component of all the transactions that HAMP and TARP undertake, except when homeowners need the lawyers.” But Treasury had insisted that because the Wall Street overhaul included a $35 million legal aid fund, a separate fund was not necessary . Last week, House lawmakers from foreclosure-battered states attempted to push legislation that would explicitly authorize Treasury to extend legal aid funds to borrowers, but the bill failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed for passage under fast-track rules. So troubled homeowners will not be receiving any help from Congress this holiday season. And with soon-to-be-House-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) opposed to legal aid programs, they are unlikely to get any further assistance next year.

Read the full article →

Mike Lux: Strategy Number One: Shift Money From the Big Banks

December 20, 2010

One of the most discouraging things about the last two years was seeing swing voters in focus groups, when asked what President Obama’s economic strategy was, repeat different versions of “Well, I know he said we needed to save the banks. Beyond that, I’m not sure.” When Obama in his first State of the Union gave a vigorous defense of bailing out the banks, saying he knew it about as popular as a root canal, and saying “I get it”, it was very memorable to voters. But when his predictions about what would happen when the banks were stabilized — they would start making loans to businesses, and businesses would start hiring — didn’t happen, and instead the banks gave themselves record breaking bonuses, voters turned on Obama fast. In exit polls on Nov. 2nd, when asked who was most to blame for the bad economy, voters by a wide margin said Wall St. was most to blame, and the voters who said that went Republican by a 14-point margin. Obviously, saving the banks hasn’t been the President’s only economic strategy. The stimulus bill, while too small, was an important job creator/saver. Saving the American auto industry was an incredibly important thing to do. Health care reform was in part a long term economic strategy. The infrastructure bank idea is a great potential job creator. Extending unemployment insurance helps keep money in the economy. And all the tax cutting going on is clearly meant to have some stimulative effect, although how much is highly debatable. However, there have certainly been times where Secretary Geithner, who has been the main driver of the economic strategy, seems to think and act as if helping the big banks and helping the economy amount to the same thing. The tepid reaction to the foreclosure crisis has sure felt that way — apparently we can’t freeze foreclosures or do much to help homeowners because it might “endanger” the banks. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite: that our number one economic strategy right now should be to shift money from the big banks to the real economy, to Main Street businesses and workers and consumers. The big banks are hoarding extraordinary amounts of money, and they are clearly not investing it in job creating businesses. They are speculating with it, they are trading with it, they are investing in complicated financial instruments that do nothing to create jobs- in fact, they are sucking capital out of the real economy that might actually create jobs. These massive financial conglomerates have way too much concentrated wealth and market power, and that is weakening the rest of the economy. This is one reason why, as I wrote a couple of times last week, it is so important to write down the mortgages of homeowners who are underwater. Taking that money out of the bankers’ hands and putting it in the hands of the hard pressed middle class would do more to stimulate the economy than any other thing the President could do right now. This is also why the Federal Reserve’s new proposed rule, out last week, on swipe fees is so good. It would generally limit swipe fees to 12 cents per transaction. Right now the average is 44 cents, and with most small businesses it’s quite a bit higher. If this rule is upheld, this is money that will go straight from the big banks’ profit margins into the main street economy — all told, probably a $15 billion boost going back to retailers, restaurant owners, taxi cab drivers, and hopefully consumers. $15 billion going from Wall Street, speculative economy into the real economy is a nice lift right now. This is why I have been working with retail business leaders and consumer groups to support this new regulation. Unfortunately, not all Democrats see it this way. Tom Carper and Mark Warner tried to head off the amendment that made this regulation happen in the Senate, and have been lobbying the Federal Reserve against a strong regulation on the subject ever since they lost the legislative fight. And Barney Frank, who is a great liberal on social issues but spends way too much time with bank lobbyists, was whining on Friday how unfair the proposed rule was to the poor bankers. Barney, you got this one wrong. Democrats should not be looking out for the bankers, we should be looking for every single opportunity we can to drain the Wall St. swamp. The big banks are hoarding money. They have way too much market power, and when their profits expand, they put that money into the speculative economy rather than the real economy that manufactures goods, sells products and services, and creates jobs. When we take a dollar away from them, and put it into the real economy, there is actually a multiplier effect as people on Main Street spend or invest the money in real products. When mortgages get written down, it helps the real economy. When swipe fees on credit or debit card transactions get lessened, it helps the real economy. If we instituted a transactions tax on every trade made on Wall St, and put that money into a jobs program, that would help the real economy. The big banks are hoarding our money. Our best economic program right now is to shift money from the banks, and put it into the hands of consumers who might actually buy products and businesses who might actually hire more workers.

Read the full article →

Scott White: CNBC’s Midlife Crisis

December 20, 2010

Once upon a time, like maybe 2-1/2 years ago, just as the financial crisis was starting to deliver a series of swift kicks to the stock market’s nether regions, CNBC was — and had been, for years — a terrific, informative, “must-watch” business news channel. Squawk Box in the morning was a fun, funny, and informative pre-market potpourri of economic and company-specific business news, information, features, and light banter. Power Lunch was two hours of the same, at mid-day — different cast of characters, same mind-set. Market close brought a recap of the day’s events, plus post-market earnings announcements. Throughout the day there was a procession of talking heads, usually analyst sell side and usually bullish, but that was to be expected. Listen with a dose of skepticism, but maybe get some good ideas. And stay in touch with the latest trends and company news. CNBC, Wall Street Journal , Barron’s , Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser , all manna in an investor’s paradise. Then something happened. I don’t know exactly what caused it. But CNBC changed. For the worse, and hasn’t looked back. Maybe several somethings happened. Not sure. Maybe it was the shattering of investor confidence in Wall Street, the devastating losses to folks’ 401ks, despite daily insistence by the talking heads that the financials were a screaming buy and the sell-off was overdone, and thus a big ratings downturn. Maybe it was the proliferation of infotainment channels on cable tv, where to survive you needed an edge, conflict, confrontation, shouting — not just talking, but shouting — heads, to be noticed in an increasingly crowded media landscape. Maybe, more specifically, it was growing competition from Fox Business Network, which epitomized the new, opinionated, strident, “my way or the highway”, brass knuckles form of business journalism. But having swallowed the old Fnn 20 years ago and solidified its position as the preeminent voice in TV business programming since then, in its mid-life, about two years ago, CNBC morphed into something I no longer recognize most of the time. When did every sneeze or cough by a company or from Washington become “Breaking News”? When did it become necessary for the anchors to say, at the beginning of almost every program, “we have a lot to talk about” today. Meaning, if they didn’t say it, there wasn’t much going on that day? When did every interview become an “exclusive” interview (what, before that, they invited Larry King and Barbara Walters to join them)? When did normal programming morph into “special editions” of Power Lunch , simply because they were going to have an “exclusive” interview with a CEO who hadn’t given an interview in, can you imagine, over three weeks? When did 3-4 pm become “the most important hour of the trading day”? So, every other hour is just chopped liver? But I’m still supposed to watch then, right? Why did they start asking, at 4 pm, “do you know where your money is”? (OK, Madoff’s in jail, what do you know I don’t know about where my money is?) And why aren’t you telling me?) When did the anchors become “personalities”, more important than the people they were interviewing? (The other day, they were supposed to get parting words from their daily Squawk Box guest host, but Joe Kernan spent so much time talking about his hair, they ran out of time and said, “next time”). Why did it suddenly become so important for me to know what Maria Bartiromo’s market views are? Why did “In Cramer We Trust” become an unofficial slogan of CNBC? When did Fast Money plus Mad Money expand to fill 1/4 of the day’s programming, breathless prose for day-traders and options traders, fawning interviews with CEOs, and “buy, buy, buy” stocks with PE ratios of 75, 100 or higher? With no accountability, to anyone. Is that it, CNBC now caters to Main Street day-traders, as well as their staple of Wall Street traders and CEOs? I know, Cramer says he simply wants to educate his viewers. And that’s why he whips them, and himself, into a frenzy every evening. And why you have to pay to get access to many services on his website, which he touts every day. I do wonder, does anyone, anyone , stop to ask whether this is a good way to prime the public for a lifetime of serious investing, right after the worst financial crisis in 80 years? But I digress. When did rants replace analysis? When did every guest have to be asked his/her opinion of QE2 (Fed quantitative easing), the deficit, and whether President Obama is anti-business, beating the issues to death, mercilessly, each and every day, and then beating them some more? When did certain guest hosts (Michelle Caruso-Cabrera and the departed-but-not-lamented Denis Kneale were the worst offenders) start asking pointed questions and then interrupting their guests to give the answers themselves? Are guests just props? Why is Bob Pisani hawking new CNBC software for “only $29.95″, or a free trial, to viewers (just this week)? Why are CNBC employees touting Federal Express as a great investment for the better part of a week and then broadcasting from Fedex locations twice within a week (last Tuesday and this coming Monday, promos on the hour)? Isn’t that just a tad too cozy, or, dare I utter the phrase, even a conflict of interest? Of course, by that standard CNBC would be a perpetual conflict of interest machine, since they constantly interview analysts who recommend companies that are big CNBC advertisers. But again I digress. Isn’t anybody else noticing this? Am I crazy? Has the world changed, and I’m a fuddy-duddy, stuck in another universe? Is this the “new normal”? I used to think I was Everyman or a good litmus test for what the average guy or girl was thinking. But the silence on CNBC’s transmogrification (a 20th century word, perhaps) is deafening. Isn’t anybody else tired of this ? In the past 2-1/2 years, I feel the CNBC universe has turned upside down, and no one has noticed. I’m no longer informed by the opinionated program anchors, I’m told what they think about the major political/business issues of the day. To be honest, I don’t much care what they think. With all respect, that’s not why I watch. There are exceptions, of course, and you can see those anchors squirm as the new journalists wax, rant and polemicize. But they are in the minority. And I do still get long stretches where CNBC actually focuses on business and company news, and then they remain very, very good. So why do I still watch, you might ask? Why not vote with my remote? Good questions. Well, in truth, I now watch increasingly less. First, I just turned down the volume. Then I started turning the channel. Just the other day, I saw David Einhorn, head of Greenlight Capital, on CNBC and then a few days later on Bloomberg. The Bloomberg segment with Einhorn was highly informative. Rather than asking him his views on tax cuts and QE2, which is what CNBC does, they actually talked about his holdings and his investment philosophy, at length. How refreshing, I thought! I learned something! Such a feeling! But it’s like an abusive relationship, me and CNBC. I’ve been in it so long, it’s hard to extricate myself. And, for the longest time, I failed to recognize how increasingly unhappy I was in the relationship. I was saddened when Bill Griffeth took his sabbatical a year ago, I felt like Sue Herrera did. Yes, they had become part of my daily life, they were “family”, I was hooked. Having lived with many of them for between 10 and 20 years, I didn’t want to be the one to leave. I don’t want to change channels. I want them to change. Back to what they were before, funny and informative, but nothing more. Not the story. So why isn’t anybody writing about this? Are they too busy day-trading? Speaking of which, I’ve probably missed a half-dozen breaking stories by now, and the next edition of Fast Money will be on again soon, so I gotta go, don’t want to miss out. Maybe they are getting to me, after all. I still think, though, something is seriously off the tracks at CNBC nowadays. And I still hope that someday soon, somewhere, someone is going write about how things have changed for the worse at CNBC, so they can see the error of their ways, and we can return to — the way we were.

Read the full article →

Bank Of America To Stop Processing WikiLeaks Payments, WikiLeaks Lashes Out On Twitter

December 18, 2010

Bank of America announced it will stop handling transactions for WikiLeaks, the controversial non-profit group that has published secret government data and communications. In a tense response posted on Twitter late last night WikiLeaks urged customers to stop doing business with the bank and suggested the consumers could find safer places to put their money. See WikiLeaks’ Twitter response below: According to the AP: “The bank said in a statement that it believes that site ‘may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.’ It joins financial institutions including MasterCard and PayPal that have stopped handling payments for the site.” In a cover story published last month in Forbes , WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who was recently released from a British prison, said that the organization’s next leak, due out early next year, will involve at least one major American bank . In a 2009 Computer World interview, Assange said that his organization had obtained a 5GB hardrive from a Bank of America employee, but had been struggling with the best way to present the hard drive’s data.

Read the full article →

Video: Mallaby Says Insider Trading Like `Parking Infraction’

December 17, 2010

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) — Sebastian Mallaby, author of “More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite,” talks about today’s insider trading arrests. Three people who worked at technology firms including chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. were arrested along with an “expert networker” as federal prosecutors expanded a probe of insider trading to companies. Mallaby talks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Richard Barrington: 8 Best Banking Trends of 2010

December 15, 2010

It seems like the words “good news” and “banking” haven’t gone in the same sentence since the start of the financial crisis in 2008. Although there’s no doubt that bank customers got a raw deal in the recession, there were many positive developments in banking during 2010. Here were the eight best trends in banking for consumers this year: Mortgage rates were cheaper than ever. Historically, 30-year mortgage rates have averaged around 8.91 percent. For the first 11 months of 2010, they averaged 4.69 percent. This cuts the interest expense of buying a house almost in half. Perhaps even better, the drop in mortgage rates sparked a surge in mortgage refinancing, giving a boost to the budgets of many a cash-strapped household. The great thing about these historically low mortgage rates is that while they may not last long, homeowners who were able to lock in 30-year mortgages this year will benefit from this dip in rates for many years to come. Financial reform. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — commonly known as financial reform — was a mixed bag for consumers. Chief among the negatives: higher compliance costs may cause higher fees on checking accounts and/or lower interest rates on CDs, savings accounts and money market accounts in the years to come. In the big picture, though, the new law’s consumer protections and restoration of elements of the old Glass-Steagall legislation should make the banking system more stable and secure . Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how long these reforms survive the efforts of the banking lobby to chip away at them. Millions of Americans stopped paying protection. It’s not extortion, but it is exorbitant — overdraft fees had become a huge profit center for banks in recent years. New rules gave customers the latitude to say no to overdraft protection programs and, according to Moebs Services, over 30 million customers did just that. Unfortunately, a great many more chose to continue overdraft protection. Even these customers got a small break, though. The average overdraft fee dropped by 50 cents in the latter half of 2010, according to Moebs. Free checking survived. Some predicted that the compliance costs of Dodd-Frank, the loss of some overdraft fee revenue and previously implemented limitations on credit card practices would drive banks to drop services like free checking. Indeed, a Moebs survey found that the availability of free checking dropped 11 percentage points. However, that still left nearly three-quarters of banks and credit unions offering free checking. With thousands of FDIC-insured institutions out there, customers still had plenty to choose from. A poll in late 2010 by MoneyRates.com and GetRichSlowly.org found that 95 percent of respondents were able to avoid monthly checking account fees one way or another. The hike in FDIC insurance was made permanent. For years, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance was $100,000 per depositor at any given institution. This was temporarily hiked to $250,000 during the banking crisis, and in 2010 this higher insurance limit was made permanent. This was a triple win for consumers. First, this emphatic government backing demonstrated that the federal government is prepared to stand behind deposits in the U.S. banking system. Second, the increase in the insurance ceiling reflected the fact that the previous $100,000 limit had been significantly devalued by inflation since it was established in 1980. Third, raising the insurance limit to $250,000 increases the ability of customers to consolidate funds and take advantage of “jumbo” rates on deposits (offered on balances of $100,000 or higher) and other benefits available to large depositors. The dollar limit for FDIC insurance was increased. In a less publicized move, FDIC insurance on non-interest-bearing transaction accounts, which includes checking accounts that don’t pay interest, was temporarily expanded without limit. These accounts also will not count against the $250,000 limit for other deposits, making it easier for customers to have checking accounts at the same bank as their savings accounts or money market accounts without exceeding the insurance limit. Two caveats: This unlimited insurance is available only from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2012, and it only applies to accounts that don’t pay interest. Of course, with interest rates as low as they are now, customers would not have to forgo much interest for the benefit of obtaining unlimited insurance on their accounts through 2012. Consumers fought back against credit card debt. A streak of 40 straight years in which revolving credit balances, which chiefly includes credit card debt, increased was broken in 2009. Federal Reserve figures through October 2010 showed that revolving credit debt was on track to decrease again in 2010. This sudden reversal in a decades-long debt binge doesn’t mean that revolving credit balances are now low, but at least they are finally headed in the right direction — back to the neighborhood of 2004 levels. It is also possible that consumers are taking advantage of low interest credit card rates to reduce their total debt spend. Americans began to build savings. Paying down debt is just half the battle for American households. After years of lax savings habits and disappointing investment returns, Americans were far behind in their retirement savings. In 2010 there were some steps in the right direction. According to the Federal Reserve, savings deposit accounts increased during each of the first 10 months of the year. This added a cumulative total of more than $400 billion to savings deposit balances — despite the fact that these balances were getting little help from low interest rates on savings accounts. As with the trend in revolving credit balances, this increase in savings so far represents only a short-term reversal of some long-standing bad habits. Still, the road to rebuilding savings accounts has to begin somewhere, and the figures indicate that in 2010 Americans have at least made a start. Which banking customers didn’t benefit in 2010? Most notably, those who were victimized by slapdash foreclosure procedures by some banks and mortgage processing companies, and the customers in deposit accounts who lost billions of dollars to inflation in an environment of unnaturally low CD rates, savings account rates and money market rates. Maybe 2011 will be the year when these customers get a better deal. The original article can be found at MoneyRates.com: 8 best banking trends of 2010

Read the full article →

No Pre-Nup, Big Problems? Hurley Could Lose Millions In Divorce

December 15, 2010

Liz Hurley is set to get a ‘quickie’ divorce from husband Arun Nayar, the Daily Mail is reporting–a move that will ensure she doesn’t lose her multi-millon-dollar fortune. Despite earlier Daily Mail reports that the British actress, 45, stood to lose substantial amounts in the divorce, because she and her Indian businessman husband, 46 did not have a pre-nup, the paper is now reporting a source as having told Indian reporters at the couple’s home in Mumbai, “It will be an amicable settlement with no party giving out large portions of money to anybody. Liz doesn’t want Arun’s money and neither is Arun interested in her wealth.” Hurley’s fortune, which is reportedly substantially larger than her husband’s, includes a £4.3 million farmhouse in South-West England and a £2.5 million townhouse in London , which she co-owns with former boyfriend Hugh Grant. In cases where one spouse is wealthier than the other and there is no pre-nuptial agreement, the poorer spouse can claim for a piece of the richer spouse’s money. Though it’s unlikely that Nayar would have gotten half of her money, he could have demanded other significant divorce spoils–a house, for example. Hurley and Nayar, who were married in 2007 in luxe ceremonies that spanned two continents, are set to split amid allegations that Hurley cheated.

Read the full article →

Sidney Shapiro: False Choices: Senator Warner’s Plan to Adopt a Regulation, Drop a Regulation

December 14, 2010

A particularly revealing story in The Washington Post this weekend reported on a sordid tale of regulatory failure that may have helped contribute to this spring and summer’s outbreak of outbreak of egg-borne salmonella that sickened more than 1,900 people and led to the largest recall of eggs in U.S. history.

Read the full article →

Tax-Cut Plan Eases Pressure On Bernanke And Fed

December 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve last month absorbed a wave of criticism for announcing it will buy $600 billion in Treasury bonds to try to revitalize the economy. It won’t help, critics said. So when Fed officials meet Tuesday, they’re likely to feel a weight has been lifted: The White House and key Republicans have agreed on a tax-cut deal that’s expected to do just what critics said the Fed’s bond purchases wouldn’t: Boost spending, spur hiring and speed economic growth. Economists say they think the Fed will still carry out its full $600 billion bond-buying plan by the end of June as scheduled. Unemployment is 9.8 percent, and the economy needs all the help it can get. But the tax-cut plan does make the Fed less likely to buy even more than $600 billion in bonds – something Chairman Ben Bernanke said it might do if the economy needed further help. No policy changes are expected at the Fed’s meeting. “The tax-cut plan reduces pressure on the Fed to have to buy more government securities,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “I think they are committed to $600 billion because they aren’t certain how things will turn out. It’s always possible the economy could rev up rapidly. But I think the odds are low the Fed will do less.” Zandi and other economists think the tax cuts will help stimulate growth over the next two years. And consequently, the Fed might have to raise record-low interest rates sooner than had been expected. That’s because stronger growth increases the risk of high inflation, which the Fed fights by raising rates to cool the economy. The tax-cut plan will also swell the government’s annual budget deficits, which are already running well over $1 trillion. Zandi and others now think the Fed will start raising rates in late 2012, compared with early 2013 without the tax-cut plan. The Fed announced its Treasury-purchase plan at its last meeting, Nov. 3. At the time, Congress seemed unlikely to do much on its own to strengthen the economy. Bernanke felt Congress’ reluctance to approve new stimulative spending obliged the Fed to do what it could to further drive down interest rates. But early this month, the White House and Republicans forged a broad tax-cut deal that seems likely to pass despite resistance from many Democrats. Among other things, the plan would extend 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts for two years; renew long-term unemployment aid for 13 more months; reduce workers’ Social Security taxes in 2011; and let companies increase their tax write-offs for capital investments next year. The tax-cut package does raise the risk of higher interest rates resulting from a stronger economy. And critics say the Fed’s bond purchases will contribute to inflation pressures because it will be flooding the financial system with dollars – essentially, printing more money. Investors have already bid up the yield on the 10-year Treasury note in anticipation of higher inflation and higher rates. From a low of around 2.4 percent in early October, the yield on the 10-year Treasury has surged nearly a full percentage point to about 3.3 percent. Lowering rates on mortgages and other loans, to make it cheaper to borrow, was a key goal of the Fed’s bond-buying program. Instead, higher Treasury yields in recent weeks have raised mortgage rates, which tend to track long-term Treasury yields. The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage has reached 4.61 percent. That’s up sharply from 4.17 percent a month ago, the lowest rate in the 40 years that records have been kept. Yet in defense of the Fed, some economists say rates would be even higher now if not for the Fed’s program to buy more Treasurys. And even the current slightly higher rates remain near historic lows. Most economists say the benefits of the tax-cut plan will outweigh the costs of slightly higher interest rates. That’s why economists are raising their estimates for economic growth. Zandi, for instance, has raised his forecast for economic growth next year from 2.7 percent to 4 percent. It also helps explain why stock prices have been rising. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index is at a new high for the year and is now trading at roughly the same price it did the week before Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2008. Higher stock prices are helping households rebuild the wealth they lost to the recession. That, in turn, is spurring higher spending, especially by wealthier Americans. At the same time, critics who worry about inflation and the nation’s trillion-dollar budget deficits point to the tax-cut plan’s estimated $855 billion cost over two years. Lawmakers have yet to agree on any long-term deficit-reduction plan. Worries about runaway deficits and debt could inflame inflation fears. Bond investors would demand ever higher returns to lend their money. A sharp run-up in interest rates would slow the economy. The current roughly 3.3 percent yield on the 10-year Treasury is still low enough to support strong growth, economists say. But the higher it goes, the bigger the drag on growth as higher rates ripple through the economy. “Once it exceeds the 5 percent threshold, the recovery is in danger of stalling,” said Bernard Baumohl, chief economist at the Economic Outlook Group. “Higher borrowing costs will cool business and consumer spending.” Baumohl said he worries the Fed’s bond-buying program may prove counter-productive if “bond investors increasingly worry that additional monetary stimulus, in conjunction with the latest stimulative tax deal, will cause inflation expectations to flare up.” At their meeting Tuesday, Bernanke and his colleagues will likely discuss the effect of the tax-cut deal on the Fed’s efforts to stimulate the economy. But with scant likelihood of any Fed policy changes, attention has turned instead to the tax-cut plan emerging in Congress – its benefits and its risks. And no one is looking anymore at the Fed to rescue the economy alone.

Read the full article →

Tony Hsieh: Zappos Founder: Why I Walked Away From Big Money At Microsoft

December 13, 2010

From Delivering Happiness: A Path to Passion, Profits and Purpose by Tony Hsieh. A bet is a bet. If I lose a bet, I always pay up. On graduation day in college, my friends made a bet with me. They bet that I would become a millionaire within 10 years, and if it happened, then we would all go on a cruise together, and I would pay for everyone’s trip. If it didn’t happen, then we would still go on a cruise together, but they would pool together and pay for my trip. To me, it seemed like a win-win situation: either I would be a millionaire or I would get a free cruise. Either way, I would be happy, so agreed to the bet. It was early 1999, and we all flew to Florida to take a three-day cruise to the Bahamas. I decided to invite some of my other friends as well, so we ended up with a group of about 15 people. I had never been on a cruise before, so I was pretty amazed at how big the ship was. There was a nightclub, ten bars, swimming pools, and five all-you-can-eat restaurants. We had a great time drinking, eating, partying, and then drinking, eating, and partying some more. It was like a mini college reunion, without all the boring parts. We all decided to go to the nightclub on the final night of the cruise to drink and dance the night away. In the eyes of all my friends on the cruise, I was everything that they thought defined success and happiness. My friends commented that I seemed more self-confident and congratulated me on selling the company to Microsoft. (Tony Hsieh sold LinkExchange , a web-based advertising company, to Microsoft in 1998 for a $265M.) At 1:00 AM, the DJ announced that it was last call, and that the bar and club would be shutting down soon. As everyone headed to the bar to get one last drink before the night was over, I stood by myself for a moment to avoid the rush and to take in the moment. If someone had told me four years ago that I would be a millionaire and on a cruise ship celebrating, I would not have believed it. Yet, as the drinks flowed, the music pulsated, and friends cheered and toasted one another, a nagging voice in the back of my mind repeatedly brought up the same questions that had been there ever since the silent walk with Sanjay back to the office the day the Microsoft deal closed: Now what? What’s next? And then there were the follow-up questions: What is success? What is happiness? What am I working toward? I still didn’t have the answers. So I went to the bar, ordered a shot of vodka, and clinked glasses with Sanjay. Figuring out the answers could wait until later. After the cruise, I felt like I was on autopilot: waking up late, making an appearance at the office for a few hours and checking my e-mail, then heading home early. Every once in a while, I’d skip going to the office altogether. I had a lot of free time and I didn’t know what to do with it. So I had a lot of time to think. I’d already bought all the things I wanted: a place to live, a big-screen TV, a computer, and a home theater system. I started going to Vegas every other weekend to play poker. I wasn’t playing for the money. It was about the challenge of figuring out how to beat the game. Poker is the only casino game where you’re playing against other players instead of the house, so as long as you’re better than the average player at your table, you actually can win in the long run. But most of my free time was spent just being introspective and thinking. I didn’t need more money, so what was it good for? I wasn’t spending the money I already had. So why was I staying at Microsoft, vesting in peace, trying to get more of it? I made a list of the happiest periods in my life, and I realized that none of them involved money. I realized that building stuff and being creative and inventive made me happy. Connecting with a friend and talking through the entire night until the sun rose made me happy. Trick-or-treating in middle school with a group of my closest friends made me happy. Eating a baked potato after a swim meet made me happy. Pickles made me happy. (Although for that one, I’m still unclear why. I think it’s just because they are obviously delicious and I enjoy saying “pickles.”) I thought about how easily we are all brainwashed by our society and culture to stop thinking and just assume by default that more money equals more success and more happiness, when ultimately happiness is really just about enjoying life. I thought about how I enjoyed creating, building, and doing stuff that I was passionate about. And there was so much opportunity to create and build stuff, especially with the Internet still exploding, and not enough time to pursue every idea out there. And yet here I was, wasting my time, wasting my life, so that I could make more money even though I had all the money I ever needed for the rest of my life. A lot was going to change about the world. We were on the eve of not only a new century, but a new millennium. The world was about to change in a dramatic way, and I was about to miss out on it so that I could make even more money when I already had all the money I would ever need. And then I stopped thinking to myself and started talking to myself: “There will never be another 1999. What are you going to do about it?” I already knew the answer. In that moment, I had chosen to be true to myself and walk away from the all the money that was keeping me at Microsoft. A few days later, I went to the office, sent my good-bye e-mail to the company, and walked out the door. I didn’t know exactly what I was going to do, but I knew what I wasn’t going to do. I wasn’t going to sit around letting my life and the world pass me by. People thought I was crazy for giving up all that money. And yes, making that decision was scary, but in a good way. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it was a turning point for me in my life. I had decided to stop chasing the money, and start chasing the passion. I was ready for the next chapter in my life.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: 2011 Battleground: UBS Versus the Dorfman Indicator

December 12, 2010

One of Yogi Berra’s more famous Yogi-isms: “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” That’s worth keeping in mind since Wall Street’s bulls, bears and buffoons will soon be blitzing us with their traditional year-end bombardment of forecasts on what’s ahead for the stock market in 2011. In fact, the blitz is already under way. The problem is the overwhelming number of forecasters are notoriously inept. Just check the year-end market predictions of your favorite TV business shows and financial publications at any time over the past 10 years, look a year out and you’ll see how consistently wrong the supposed experts have been. In most cases, the self-proclaimed Wall Street and media experts would have probably fared a lot better simply tossing a coin. As far as 2011 goes, one thing seems certain. Clearly, a tug of war lies ahead, what with many hedge fund managers I talk to solidly downbeat for all the reasons everybody knows, while Wall Street is predominantly bullish, again for all the reasons everybody knows. So who and what are we supposed to believe? And is it time to get excited about stocks again? UBS Financial Securities, just out with its new year’s outlook for its wealth management clients, offers what strikes me as a sane look-head. First though, it’s worth your knowing about the Dorfman indicator, one of my favorite market barometers, which has proven infallible as far back as I can remember. A creation of mine, it’s a contrarian view based on the repeated forecasts of a veteran Wall Street trader, who has an incredible knack of consistently being wrong whenever he tries to predict the direction of the market. In this respect, in fact, I can’t ever recall him being right. So whatever he thinks, just do the opposite. The last time I caught up with our trader was in early August with the Dow at around 10,000. He was very bearish, and, in fact, told me he was shorting stocks (a bet they would fall in price). What a mistake! True to form, the market went higher, with the Dow, now at around 11,400, turning in a nifty 14% gain. What does he think now? Bad news, I’m sorry to say. Unequivocally, he tells me, 2011 will be a winning year for investors. “The economic recovery is for real,” he says. “The evidence is all around us. The unemployment and housing problems are not about to be resolved in the next 12 minutes, but we should see some progress in both areas next year, and the stock market should respond positively.” An essentially similar view is held by UBS Financial Services, Looking a year out, Stephen Freedman, the head of investment strategy is convinced being moderately bullish is the way to go. His reasoning: The global economic recovery is on track and equities are set to outperform while fiscal risks remain at the forefront. One key plus, as he sees it, is that global stocks are sporting below-average price-earnings multiples of 12 to 13, versus an average 16.5 over the past 20 years. In terms of better than average 2011 returns, say on the order of 15% to 20%, he favors four fast growing emerging markets, notably Brazil, Russia, China and Taiwan. As far as the U.S. goes, Freedman sees a 2011 combo of a modest economic recovery (2.7% GDP growth), a tailing off in the jobless rate to 9%, continuing earnings gains of 8% to 10%, versus an estimated 35%-40% this year, paltry bond yields, making equities more attractive, and those below-average P/Es producing general 2011 stock returns of about 10% to 12%. Over the near term, though, he feels the recent sharp runup in equity markets, concerns over European sovereign debt and election uncertainties associated with a new Congress could spur a temporary pullback. He also worries about geopolitical risks, namely flare ups between the U.S. and China, new challenges from nuclear-minded Iran, heightened tensions between North and South Korea and renewed debt problems in Europe. Where should U.S. equity investors put their money to work here? Freedman favors information technology, consumer staples, energy, gold and industrials, mainly transportation. At the same time, he would shun the telecom, consumer discretionary, materials and health care sectors. His wrapup: “Economically, it’s going to take the U.S. longer to catch up, but nonetheless “it’s a good time to buy stocks.” Costa Rican money manager Felix Heligmann disagrees. There are lots of cheap U.S. stocks out there, he says, but notes “I’m not a buyer.” His reasoning: “I expect 2011 to be a very difficult year for the U.S market.” In particular, Heligmann sees growing friction between China and the U.S., increasing Washington gridlock, meaning little if anything will be done legislatively to beef up the ailing economy and appreciably lower the high unemployment rate, and a worsening European debt crisis. What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Susan G. Komen Foundation Elbows Out Charities Over Use Of The Word ‘Cure’

December 7, 2010

In addition to raising millions of dollars a year for breast cancer research, fundraising giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure has a lesser-known mission that eats up donor funds: patrolling the waters for other charities and events around the country that use any variation of “for the cure” in their names. So far, Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure–and many of the organizations are too small and underfunded to hold their ground. “It happened to my family,” said Roxanne Donovan, whose sister runs Kites for a Cure, a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research. “They came after us ferociously with a big law firm. They said they own ‘cure’ in a name and we had to stop using it, even though we were raising money for an entirely different cause.” Donovan’s sister, Mary Ann Tighe, said the Komen foundation sent her a letter asking her to stop using the phrase “for a cure” in their title and to never use the color pink in conjunction with their fundraising. What bothered her most about the whole ordeal, she said, was that Komen forced her to spend money and time on legal fees and proceedings instead of raising funds for cancer. “We were certainly taken aback by it,” she told HuffPost. “We have partners running these kite events around the country. What if one of them uses, say, magenta? Is that pink? I mean, where are we going with this? We just want to raise money for cancer. What we don’t want is to have our energy misplaced by having our charity partners trying to police the good work that we’re doing.” Sue Prom, who started a small dog sledding fundraiser for breast cancer called “Mush for the Cure” in Grand Marais, Minn., said she was shocked to hear from Komen’s lawyers this summer asking that she change the name of her event or face legal proceedings. “I had to call the trademark helpline, because I had no idea what I was doing,” said Prom, who runs the annual sled race with her husband and friend. “We pay for the expenses out of our pockets, and we’ve never personally made a dime from it. We have t-shirts, sweatshirts, domain names, posters, stationery, all with ‘Mush for the Cure’ on it. What do we do with all the materials now? How are we gonna defend ourselves? We’re not like Komen.” Prom said she’s been running the event for six years, and the most she has raised for the National Breast Cancer Foundation is $25,000. Before the NBCF could accept the money, they warned her to file for a trademark to protect her event legally against the Komen Foundation. But now that Komen has opposed Mush’s trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Prom is looking for a pro bono lawyer to help her figure out what to do next. “I think it’s a shame,” she said. “It’s not okay. People don’t give their money to the Komen Foundation and they don’t do their races and events so that Komen can squash any other fundraising efforts by individuals. That’s not what it’s about.” Komen’s general counsel, Jonathan Blum, told HuffPost that the fundraising powerhouse tries to be reasonable when dealing with small charities and nonprofits, but that it has a legal duty to protect its more than 200 registered trademarks. “It’s never our goal to shut down a nonprofit,” he said, “and we try very hard to be reasonable, but it’s still our obligation to make sure that our trademarks are used appropriately so there’s no confusion in the marketplace over where people’s money is going.” Blum told HuffPost that legal fees comprise a “very small part” of Komen’s budget, but according to Komen’s financial statements, such costs add up to almost a million dollars a year in donor funds. “I think it’s important that charities protect their brand, but on the other hand, I don’t think the donors’ intent in giving their money was to fund a turf war,” said Sandra Minuitti, a spokesperson for Charity Navigator. “It’s very important that Komen treads carefully and is very transparent about how they’re spending money on these legal battles.” Michael Mercanti, an intellectual property lawyer, said he is surprised by the large number of oppositions Komen has filed against other charities–a number he would expect from a company like Toys”R”Us or McDonalds, but not a charitable fundraising organization. “They seem to be very aggressive in policing their mark, or what they’re claiming to be their mark,” he told HuffPost. “I guess there are a lot of ways to captain a ship, but it seems like there are ways they could protect and police their trademarks and also allow other charities to coexist.” Mercanti said filing hundreds of oppositions is not only damaging to other charities, but could also be counterproductive for Komen’s brand. “They could actually be seen as being a bully,” he said. “They’re going to alienate some donors who don’t appreciate them stepping on smaller, worthwhile charities.” With the help of a team of pro bono layers, Kites for a Cure was able to reach a settlement with Komen: They agreed to only use the phrase “for a Cure” in conjunction with the words “lung cancer” to make the distinction clear. But Tighe said they reached a settlement only after many, many months of a free legal team working long hours each day. “We were very fortunate because we had strong support from knowledgeable pro bono counsel, but it did seem like a misdirection of a lot of people’s energy,” she told HuffPost. “I don’t know what smaller organizations do without free representation.” Sue Prom said Tighe has already put her in touch with her pro bono legal team, and she is prepared to fight for the name of her sledding event in court. The ordeal has changed her opinion of Komen. “I used to give money to Komen all the time, but now I’m just kind of wary of them,” she said. “I’m not buying Yoplait yogurt or anything that has the word ‘Komen’ on it. They seem to have forgotten what charity is about.”

Read the full article →

WATCH: Bernanke Defends Bond Buys On ’60 Minutes’, Says Years Until ‘Normal’ Unemployment

December 6, 2010

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is stepping up his defense of the Fed’s $600 billion Treasury bond-purchase plan, saying the economy is still struggling to become “self-sustaining” without government help. In a taped interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday night, Bernanke also argued that Congress shouldn’t cut spending or boost taxes given how fragile the economy remains. The Fed chairman said he thinks another recession is unlikely. But he warned that the economy could suffer a slowdown if persistently high unemployment dampens consumer spending. The interview is part of a broad counteroffensive Bernanke has been waging against critics of the bond purchase plan the Fed announced Nov. 3. The purchases are intended to lower long-term interest rates, lift stock prices and encourage more spending to boost the economy. WATCH: Critics, from Republicans in Congress to some officials within the Fed, say they fear the Fed’s intervention could spur inflation and speculative buying on Wall Street while doing little to aid the economy. On other issues in the “60 Minutes” interview, Bernanke: _ Argued that unemployment would have been far higher – “something like it was in the Depression, 25 percent” – had the Fed not provided extraordinary aid to Wall Street firms, banks and other companies to ease a credit crisis. _ Said it could take four or five more years for unemployment, now at 9.8 percent, to fall to a historically normal 5 percent or 6 percent. _ Reiterated that the Fed is prepared to buy even more than $600 billion in Treasury bonds over the next eight months, should it decide the economy needs the fuel of even lower interest rates. _ Argued that the risk of inflation is overblown. Bernanke said he’s “100 percent” confident the Fed will be able to ward off inflation, when the time is right, by raising interest rates and unwinding its stimulative programs. _ Called the risk of deflation – a prolonged drop in prices, wages and the values of homes and stocks – “pretty low.” He said the likelihood would have been greater if the Fed weren’t maintaining super-low interest rates. _ Urged Congress to improve the nation’s tax code “by closing loopholes and lowering rates” for individuals and companies. He said doing so would create greater incentives for people to invest. Critics who fear the Fed is raising the risk of inflation have complained that its bond purchases mean the Fed is, in effect, printing more money. In the interview, Bernanke called that a “myth.” He insisted the Fed isn’t printing money when it buys Treasurys and said the program won’t expand the amount of money in circulation in a “significant way.” Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, said Bernanke is right that the Fed’s purchases won’t significantly change the amount of money circulating in the economy. That’s mainly because banks aren’t lending most of the money they already hold in reserve. When the Fed buys Treasurys, it increases the reserves in the banking system. For those reserves to actually “create” money, the banks would have to lend it. Still, Crandall suggested that the bond-buying program creates the appearance of printing money, something that could put the central bank’s credibility at stake. Bernanke’s apperance Sunday night is part of a public-relations blitz he’s mounted since the Fed announced the program Nov. 3. In private and public appearances, Bernanke has sought to explain and defend the program to ordinary Americans, investors and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. His efforts have included an Op-Ed article in The Washington Post and discussions with students in Jacksonville, Fla., economists in Jekyll Island, Ga., business people in Columbus, Ohio, central bankers in Europe and members of the Senate Banking Committee. Criticism has come from both home and abroad. Officials in China, Germany, Brazil and other countries have argued that the Fed’s plan is a scheme to give U.S. exporters a competitive edge by keeping the value of the dollar weak. A weak dollar makes U.S. goods cheaper abroad and foreign goods more expensive in the U.S. It’s rare for a sitting Fed chairman to grant an interview, whether for broadcast or print. But this was Bernanke’s second appearance on “60 Minutes.” His first was in March 2009. At the time, he was facing anger over Wall Street bailouts and rising anxiety about the economy. In the interview that aired Sunday, Bernanke pointed out that the economy is growing at an annual pace of around 2.5 percent – far too slow to reduce unemployment. For a self-sustaining recovery, consumers and businesses would need to spend more, so the economy could grow faster. Bernanke has said he hopes the Fed’s bond-buying program will help lift stock prices. In part, that’s because lower yields on bonds would cause some people to shift money into stocks and also because lower corporate bond rates will spur business investment. Higher stock prices would boost the wealth and confidence of individuals and businesses. Spending would rise, lifting incomes, profits and economic growth. Bernanke has referred to this as a “virtuous cycle.” Asked whether the recovery is self-sustaining, Bernanke responded: “It may not be. It’s very close to the border.” Given the economy’s still-weak growth, he said: “We’re not very far from the level where the economy is not self-sustaining.”

Read the full article →

BP Challenge To Oil Spill Size Could Affect Fine

December 4, 2010

WASHINGTON — BP is mounting a new challenge to the U.S. government’s estimates of how much oil flowed from the runaway well deep below the Gulf of Mexico, an argument that could reduce by billions of dollars the federal pollution fines it faces for the largest offshore oil spill in history. BP’s lawyers are arguing that the government overstated the spill by 20 to 50 percent, staffers working for the presidential oil spill commission said Friday. In a 10-page document obtained by The Associated Press, BP says the government’s spill estimate of 206 million gallons is “overstated by a significant amount” and the company said any consensus around that number is premature and inaccurate. The company submitted the document to the commission, the Justice Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “They rely on incomplete or inaccurate information, rest in large part on assumptions that have not been validated, and are subject to far greater uncertainties than have been acknowledged,” BP wrote. “BP fully intends to present its own estimate as soon as the information is available to get the science right.” In a statement Friday, the company said the government’s estimates failed to account for equipment that could obstruct the flow of oil and gas, such as the blowout preventer, making its numbers “highly unreliable.” BP’s request could save it as much as $10.5 billion or as little as $1.1 billion, depending on factors such as whether the government concludes that BP acted negligently. For context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s entire federal budget for 2010 was $10.3 billion. President Barack Obama has said he wants Congress to set aside some of the money BP pays for fines for the Gulf’s coastal restoration. Louisiana lawmakers are pushing legislation that would require at least 80 percent of the civil and criminal penalties charged to BP, and possibly other companies, to be returned to the Gulf Coast. William K. Reilly, co-chairman of the presidential commission, expressed amazement at BP’s case Friday. Reilly headed the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush. “They are going to argue that it is 50 percent less” than the government’s total? Reilly asked. “Wow.” Under the Clean Water Act, the oil giant – which owned and operated the well – faces fines of up to $1,100 for each barrel of oil spilled. If BP were found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, the fine could be up to $4,300 per barrel. That means that based on the government’s estimate of 206 million gallons, BP could face civil fines alone of between $5.4 billion and $21.1 billion. “They are going to argue it was less,” said Priya Aiyar, the commission’s deputy chief counsel. “BP has not offered its own numbers yet, but BP has told us that it thinks the government’s numbers are too high and thinks the actual flow rate can be actually 20 to 50 percent lower.” Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., a member of the House energy panel that is investigating the spill, said in a statement Friday to the AP that BP has done whatever it could to avoid revealing the true flow rate of the spill. “With billions of dollars at stake, it is no surprise that they are now litigating the very numbers which they sought to impede,” Markey said. “The government engaged independent scientists and multiple techniques to arrive at their estimate. Additional independent peer-reviewed studies have corroborated their estimate. BP has a high bar to meet to overturn this estimate.” BP’s argument could be bolstered by the federal government’s missteps in coming up with a final estimate for the spill’s volume. The Obama administration has offered nearly 10 estimates of how much oil flowed from the BP well, coming up with a refined conclusion late last month of 206 million gallons, which is likely its last. Internal documents released late Friday under the Freedom of Information Act show that the White House was intimately involved in deciding how scientific information was portrayed to the public, particularly when it came to the August 4 release of a document that showed where the spilled oil had gone. The five-page report, which was touted by Carol Browner, the president’s energy adviser, on morning talk shows and at White House press briefing showed that half the oil was gone – either from evaporation, burning, skimming or recovery at the well head. The 3,500 pages of documents reveal that the administration wanted the oil budget to show its efforts to respond to the disaster were working, despite objections from top EPA officials, including Administrator Lisa Jackson, over how some of the data was presented. An earlier version of the press release issued with the paper said that 33 percent of the oil released was captured or mitigated by recovery efforts. A final version, changed hours before its release, said “the vast majority” of the spilled oil was addressed by recovery efforts or had naturally dispersed or evaporated. That morning, Browner appeared on national television saying that an initial assessment by federal scientists showed “more than three-quarters of the oil is gone.” In an e-mail sent later that morning addressed to Browner’s assistant, Heather Zichal, NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco finds fault with the White House’s interpretation of the report’s numbers and attribution of the report solely to NOAA. The report was drafted by several agencies. “I’m concerned to hear the oil budget report is being portrayed as saying that 75 percent of the oil is gone and that this is a NOAA report,” Lubchenco writes. “Please help make sure that both errors are corrected.” The White House acknowledged Browner had misspoke. Lubchenco explains it was only accurate to say half the oil was gone. ___ Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Matthew Daly in Washington and Harry R. Weber in New Orleans contributed to this report. ___ Online: National Oil Spill Commission: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov

Read the full article →

David Callahan: Why the Rich Cheat: A Primer on Upper Class Criminality

December 3, 2010

A persistent puzzle about financial crimes is that they often involve fabulously rich executives or traders who risk everything to do even better. The rest of us can only wonder: Just what, exactly, are these people thinking? That question came up often during the insider trading scandals of the 1980s, which brought down two insanely rich Wall Street superstars, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. It arose when billionaire Martha Stewart faced charges — and eventually served prison time — for acting on inside information to avoid losses of a few hundred thousand dollars. And the question is sure to be asked often in the months ahead as federal authorities round up more well-heeled suspects on insider trading charges. This latest government crackdown on insider trading has already ensnared a number of very wealthy individuals. Most notable among them is the billionaire Raj Rajaratnam and the top IBM executive Robert Moffat. Joseph Skowron, the hedge fund manager involved in the FrontPoint case — but not charged with any crime — lived in 10,000-square-foot mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut and, according to news reports, “amassed a collection of luxury cars that has included a blue Ferrari 458 and a black Porsche Cayenne.” And just the other day, authorities arrested wealthy San Francisco tax attorney Arnold McClellan , a partner at Deloitte Tax LLP, on charges of insider trading. His wife Annabel was also arrested. The McClellans lived the good life in San Francisco, with a 6,000-square-foot home in Pacific Heights. What’s up with these people, and so many others like them? Why would they risk so much when they already have everything? Well, as I argued in my book The Cheating Culture , a number of converging factors are usually at work when otherwise law-abiding people with lots of money turn into criminals. One is a persistent focus among those who are wealthy and competitive on their relative, rather than their absolute, well-being. A 6,000-square-foot house may sound pretty big to most of us, but it may not feel that way if those in your peer group own 10,000-square-foot homes and vacation places in Hawaii to boot. Likewise, a hedge fund guy who makes $10 million a year would seem to be doing amazingly well — except when he compares himself to the trader down the street in Greenwich who is making $100 million. Raj Rajaratnam was worth $1.5 billion in 2009 — big money, but not compared to George Soros who was worth $13 billion. As the economist Robert Frank points out in his book, Luxury Fever , the push to improve one’s relative position is actually quite rational and may be hardwired in us. If you’re the person with the smallest house in the neighborhood, even though you live in a big house, you may look less like you’re going places and get fewer opportunities thrown your way. If you’re the person wearing the $500 suit, you may lose out to the guy wearing the $1,000 suit, all other things being equal. Of course, various Wall Steeters have put the point about relative position in simpler terms over the decades: Money is how people keep score on Wall Street. If you want to be a winner, you need to make more than the next person — regardless of how much you make already. That imperative can lead people to do some pretty stupid, and illegal, things. Even small amounts of money, such as in Martha Stewart’s case, can seem significant because highly successful people often believe that they are winners because they fight relentlessly to score each and every point. Second, criminal behavior can be rooted in the ever rising bar of material expectations and the financial pressures that result. If you travel in circles where it is normal to have a spacious apartment on the Upper East Side and a place in the Hamptons, you’re facing a heavy lift to achieve and sustain that standard of living yourself. In this situation, it does make a difference whether you make $5 million a year or $15 million. Throw in a private jet and a place in Aspen as part of the norm, as well as philanthropic commitments, and you’re not going to be in the game without an income that is reliably in the mid-eight figures. It is easy for anyone to get financially over-extended, and this happens to the rich all the time. There is a long history of wealthy people who have crashed and burned in scandal because they turned to criminal actions to sustain an unaffordable lifestyle. For a particularly egregious case, recall the suicide a few years back of Jeffrey Silverman , the Upper East Side financier — with homes in Bridgehampton and Palm Beach — who stole from his own company to make ends meet. He killed himself as the net began to close. New York magazine called him “The Man Who Had Everything.” Unfortunately, he couldn’t afford everything. Finally, there is a more pedestrian reason why the rich cheat and break the law. Because they can — or think they can. When you’re part of a winning class which basically owns our political system, it can be easy to think that you’re above the rules. Or that you can avoid punishment when you break the rules by pushing the right buttons. Of course, this belief in impunity is largely correct. Most financial crimes do not result in punishment. The rich know the odds favor them when they cheat and the rewards can be vast. Until that calculus changes, big financial crimes will keep on coming.

Read the full article →

Unemployment Benefits Expire For 2 Million

December 2, 2010

Shawn Slonsky’s children know by now not to give him Christmas lists filled with the latest gizmos. The 44-year-old union electrician is one of nearly 2 million Americans whose extended unemployment benefits will run out this month, making the holiday season less about celebration than survival. “We’ll put up decorations, but we just don’t have the money for a Christmas tree,” Slonsky said. Benefits that had been extended up to 99 weeks started running out Wednesday. Unless Congress approves a longer extension, the Labor Department estimates about 2 million people will be cut off by Christmas. Support groups for the so-called 99ers have sprung up online, offering chances to vent along with tips on resumes and job interviews. Advocacy groups such as the National Employment Law Project have turned their plight into a rallying cry for Congress to extend jobless benefits. Things used to be different for Slonsky, who lives in Massillon, Ohio. Before work dried up, he earned about $100,000 a year. He and his wife lived in a three-bedroom house where deer meandered through the backyard. Then they lost their jobs. Their house went into foreclosure and they had to move in with his 73-year-old father. Now, Slonsky is dreading the holidays as his 99 weeks run out. “It’s hard to be in a jovial mood all the time when you’ve got this storm cloud hanging over your head,” he said. The average weekly unemployment benefit in the U.S. is $302.90, though it varies widely depending on how states calculate the payment. Because of supplemental state programs and other factors, it’s hard to know for sure who will lose their benefits at any given time. Congressional opponents of extending the benefits beyond this month say fiscal responsibility should come first. Republicans in the House and Senate, along with a handful of conservative Democrats, say they’re open to extending benefits, but not if it means adding to the $13.8 trillion national debt. Republicans maintain they are willing to instead use unspent money from Obama stimulus programs to foot the bill: a $12.5 billion tab for three months. Democrats argue that the extended benefits should be paid for with deficit spending because it injects money into the economy. The GOP didn’t pay any political price for stalling efforts earlier this year to extend jobless benefits that provide critical help to the unemployed – including a seven-week stretch over the summer when jobless benefits were a piece of a failed Democratic tax and jobs bill. But bad publicity because the benefits end over the holidays has long been forecast. Democrats hope that a final deal on extending Bush-era income tax cuts to the wealthy and middle class will include an agreement from Republicans to another extension of deficit-financed emergency unemployment benefits. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the No. 3 Republican in the House, said extended benefits must be paid for now, rather than later, if they’re going to win support from fiscal conservatives. “The fact that we have to keep extending unemployment benefits shows that the economic policies of this administration have failed,” said Pence spokeswoman Courtney Kolb. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told The Associated Press on Wednesday that declining to extend the benefits would be a mistake for Congress. “This is a bad way to start off the new, incoming season of new politicians that said that they wanted to make government work for people in a better way,” she said. Even if Congress does lengthen benefits, cash assistance is at best a stopgap measure, said Carol Hardison, executive director of Crisis Assistance Ministry in Charlotte, N.C., which has seen 20,000 new clients since the Great Recession started in December 2007. “We’re going to have to have a new conversation with the people who are still suffering, about the potentially drastic changes they’re going to have to make to stay out of the homeless shelter,” she said. Forget Christmas presents. What the 99ers want most of all is what remains elusive in the worst economy in generations: a job. “I am not searching for a job, I am begging for one,” said Felicia Robbins, 30, as she prepared to move out of a homeless shelter in Pensacola, Fla., where she and her five children have been living. She is using the last of her cash, about $500, to move into a small, unfurnished rental home. Robbins lost her job as a juvenile justice worker in 2009 and her last $235 unemployment check will arrive Dec. 13. Her 10-year-old car isn’t running, and she walks each day to the local unemployment office to look for work. Jeanne Reinman, 61, of Greenville, S.C., still has her house, but even that comes with a downside. After losing her computer design job a year and a half ago, Reinman scraped by with her savings and a weekly $351 unemployment check. When her nest egg vanished in July, she started using her unemployment to pay off her mortgage and stopped paying her credit card bills. She recently informed a creditor she couldn’t make payments on a loan because her benefits were ending. “I’m more concerned about trying to hang onto my house than paying you,” she told the creditor. Ninety-nine weeks may seem like a long time to find a job. But even as the economy grows, jobs that vanished in the Great Recession have not returned. The private sector added about 159,000 jobs in October – half as many as needed to reduce the unemployment rate of 9.6 percent, which the Federal Reserve expects will hover around 9 percent for all of next year. For people like JoAnn Sampson, decisions made by Congress can seem very distant. The former cart driver at U.S. Airways in Charlotte and her husband are both facing the end of unemployment benefits, and she can’t get so much as an entry-level job. “When you try to apply for retail or fast food, they say ‘You’re overqualified,’ they say ‘We don’t pay that much money,’ they say, ‘You don’t want this job,’” she said. Sampson counts her blessings: At least her two children, a teenager and a college student, are too old to expect much from Christmas this year. Wayne Pittman has been telling his family not expect much for Christmas either. The 46-year-old carpenter, along with his wife and 9-year-old son, have stopped going to movies and restaurants and buying new clothes. With his $297 weekly checks gone, holiday gifts are definitely out. “It’s not in our budget,” Pittman said. “I have a little boy, and that’s kind of hard to explain to him. To try to let him know, certain things he’s not going to be getting.” ___ This report includes contributions from Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard, in Columbia, S.C.; Ray Henry, in Atlanta; Melissa Nelson, in Pensacola, Fla.; Lucas L. Johnson II in Nashville, Tenn.; Mark Hamrick in Washington; and Jeannie Nuss in Columbus, Ohio.

Read the full article →

Bailouts Are For Banks: Unemployed People Get Zilch

December 1, 2010

In Washington, the agenda has long since moved on from bailing out megabanks to figuring out how to stop paying for things that regular people need — luxuries like health care, retirement benefits and unemployment insurance. In the suburbs of Denver, Anthony Roebuck and his family find themselves confronting an action list that seems cruelly divorced from the proceedings in the nation’s capital: They have to figure out how to keep the heat on through the Colorado winter now that his unemployment check has run out. The latest extension of emergency unemployment benefits expired on Tuesday, as a dysfunctional Congress let the deadline go without striking a deal to keep the money flowing. That put Roebuck — who drew his last check on Monday — among the two million or so unemployed Americans facing the imminent loss of their benefits between now and the end of the year. A sheet metal worker by trade, Roebuck, 44, is accustomed to earning his own way through the force of his hands. Since May, he and his family have subsisted on his wife’s paycheck from her job as a university administrator, plus a nearly $500 weekly unemployment check. They slashed away at their grocery bill, cutting out non-essentials such as the fried snacks favored by his 15-year-old son. They traded in their late-model Jeep Cherokee for an elderly Dodge sedan. They quit going to church on Sunday to save the gas money required to get there. Now, the math is set to get uglier still, as they contemplate how to run the household minus his unemployment check — a situation that seems not only impossible but also unfair. How could there have been so many billions for Wall Street, so much room to lower taxes for people with golf memberships and country houses, yet a $500-a-week check to help him pay the rent while he looks for another job suddenly threatens to bankrupt the nation? “It’s like a gut shot,” he says. “I get really upset when I think about it. I have to watch my words or I’m liable to get profane.” Perhaps even more disturbing than the callousness governing the political process is how so many powerful people in Washington are now competing to take credit for depriving the economy of meaningful relief. In the political calculus of the moment, exacerbating the troubles of the most vulnerable has become a pragmatic way to curry favor. Republicans in Congress have held up the extension of unemployment benefits and are also demanding an extension of the tax cuts President George W. Bush handed out to the wealthiest Americans. They are selling this as a stand against fiscally reckless spending and oversized government — a form of pandering that poses dire consequences to the economy. Unlike wealthy people handed tax cuts, laid-off workers receiving unemployment checks tend to inject nearly all of that money directly into the economy, leaving their dollars at the local supermarket, the hardware store, and the auto repair shop, supporting jobs for people who work at those places. Cutting off those checks deprives the economy of cash just as the market is showing tentative signs of improvement. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has become so captive to the budget-cutting-as-progress mantra ruling Washington that it is taking a victory lap for diminishing the costs of the federal bailouts — even as the savings come at the direct expense of the only piece of its rescue package that was designed to aid regular people: its anti-foreclosure program. Earlier this week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released an analysis showing that the administration would spend only about $12 billion of the $50 billion that had been dedicated under the primary bailout funds for its signature anti-foreclosure program. This, even as the foreclosure crisis shows no sign of abating. When President Obama announced the program amid great fanfare early last year, he declared that help was on the way for somewhere between three to four million American homeowners who would now be given a chance to lower their monthly payments. But through October, fewer than 500,000 distressed homeowners were making lower payments under the program. The reasons for this abysmal record are many: From its inception, the program has been a fiasco. The giant banks that send out monthly mortgage bills and collect the money for the investors who generally own the notes have repeatedly lost documents sent in by applicants seeking relief. They have forced troubled homeowners to endure interminable stints on hold, waiting to be handed the latest conflicting instruction from another bank representative. They have been told that the good people at Bank of America or J.P. Morgan Chase — to pick on two giants — would love to give them a break, but the greedy investors who own their mortgages will not go along, even though the opposite is often true: The clueless investors, who would be better served by loan alterations that cut their losses, are kept in the dark while the big banks drag out the foreclosure process, capturing fees by funneling orders for fresh appraisals and title searches that they funnel through their own subsidiaries. And even the supposed success stories– the homeowners who have navigated through the rat’s nest of ineptitude and deceit to come out with loan modifications — do not represent a fix to the fundamental problem. Lower payments have come through lowering interest rates and extending the life of the loans, not by writing down the size of the outstanding balances. With millions of people now owing more to the bank than their homes are worth, many have given up and stopped mailing checks to their lender. Many housing experts have argued that the only effective way to curb foreclosures would be to force the mortgage companies to write down loan balances. But the Obama administration, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has consistently shot down the idea of forcing the banks to swallow write-downs, because someone would have to pay the costs. Perhaps the banks, perhaps the taxpayer, and probably both. “This is a conscious choice we made, not to start with principal reduction,” Geithner said late last year, while testifying before a panel convened by Congress to keep tabs on the federal bailouts. “We thought it would be dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer.” This, from the same man who played a leading role in putting hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money on the line to rescue Wall Street. In an interview Wednesday, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial stability, Tim Massad, said the department still planned to expend the full share of bailout funds on its anti-foreclosure effort, disputing the Congressional Budget Office’s projection. But he acknowledged that, from inception, the administration’s program was limited by a reluctance to spend taxpayer funds too aggressively. He said Treasury was also confined by Congress in not being able to force mortgage companies to give homeowners relief. The result: a voluntary program that depends upon taxpayer-financed cash incentives for banks, one that has moved too slowly. “We’re not getting as many mods as we hoped,” Massad said, referring to loan modifications. “But we still have two years.” These days, this seems like the only policy imperative with currency in Washington: keeping the lid on costs, and never mind the needs of a nation still grappling with the terrible effects of the recession. Abdication of responsibility has somehow become a political virtue, a sign of fiscal toughness and even moral rectitude. This is the spirit at work in the deficit-cutting plan released Wednesday by the president’s bipartisan commission, which takes aim at Social Security and Medicare spending yet still lowers tax rates. Contrast the new austerity for retirees, laid-off workers, and homeowners facing foreclosure with the unbridled generosity lavished upon corporate American during the worst days of the financial crisis. As the Federal Reserve on Wednesday reluctantly opened the books on how it distributed some $3.3 trillion in aid during the crisis, it became clear that the central bank was basically taking over lousy investments from all comers. Even foreign banks were able to avail themselves of the Fed’s cash, selling toxic assets to the central bank at prices the market never would have paid. Such was the necessary price of staving off the financial apocalypse that might have resulted had the wrath of the market been allowed to carry on — this, we are told repeatedly by the people in charge. The money had to be handed out swiftly and indiscriminately. Fair enough, maybe so, but we have also been told that, eventually, the repairing of the financial system would lead to the healing of the broader economy, and then those facing foreclosure because they are out work would no longer have to worry. Then the millions of jobless people would see their lives restored. And not only has that not happened, but each time the unfortunate human leftovers of the recession have found themselves in need of help just to keep the lights on, we are told (by the same people who spared no expense for the banks) that there is nothing left to give them. Now is the time to get serious about putting our fiscal house in order. The bailout window is closed. Anthony Roebuck does not want a bailout. He wants a job. He spent the summer in a state-financed training program, learning how to construct solar and wind power farms. He is willing to work in renewable energy, though those jobs pay as little as $8 an hour compared to the $23 an hour he brought home from his last position, installing heating and air conditioning systems. And still, no one wants him, knowing that he will up and leave once the higher-paying jobs come back. He has been hitting construction sites, two and three a day, in search of work. And still he is unemployed. He was offered a possible job in Utah, but moving there would entail giving up his wife’s paycheck and pulling his son out of high school. So he is instead becoming expert in a new facet of the American experience, shuffling bills he cannot pay and hoping better days come soon. “Until I can get to work we’re going to be juggling between the light bill and the heat bill,” he says. “What can be late? What can’t be late? What can we skip?”

Read the full article →

Insider Trading Probe Leads Investors To Wonder: Is The Market Rigged?

November 24, 2010

NEW YORK — The Wall Street insider trading investigation may lead everyday investors – already rattled by a stock market meltdown, a one-day “flash crash” and the Madoff scandal – to finally conclude that the game is rigged. “A large part of trading has to do with trust, and I don’t have it,” says Mark Swenson, a 43-year-old plumber from New Hampshire who refuses to buy individual stocks. “When a stock moves up 10 percent, you don’t know why,” he added. “We can pretend that everyone has access to the same information, but they don’t.” Even before news broke that federal investigators were looking into whether hedge funds traded on inside information, small-time investors were pulling their money out of stocks – despite a remarkable run for the market since the spring of 2009. Americans have pulled $60 billion out of U.S. stock funds this year, according to the Investment Company Institute, a trade group. Meanwhile, investors have piled money into Treasuries and bond funds that are considered safer investments, even if they don’t return as much money. And at the same time, banks like Wells Fargo have reported that money is moving into checking and savings accounts. To be sure, it’s natural for people worried about their jobs or the falling value of their homes to sock cash into more conservative investments. But this has been no garden-variety recession. It has coincided with turmoil in the stock market that goes back a decade, to the collapse of the Internet bubble and portfolio-draining scandals involving high-flying companies such as Enron and WorldCom. More recently, investors have lived through the housing bubble, the collapse of Wall Street firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and stomach-churning days when it wasn’t clear whether capitalism would survive. On top of that came news that financier Bernard Madoff had bilked investors out of billions. “Virtually everyone on the Street believes there are significant improprieties, and I think there is an even more important point for the massive number of investors who are not Wall Street players,” says former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, once known as the “sheriff of Wall Street” for aggressively prosecuting white-collar crime as state attorney general. “And that is for most of us, you can’t beat these guys at their own game.” People are nervous about the state of their assets in part because their homes are worth so much less these days, not to mention job insecurity and slow economic growth overall. Some pros on Wall Street say hesitation by small investors is good news. It means that there’s plenty of “dry powder” to propel the market higher in the next few months when and if the little guy finally relents and joins in the rally. The insider-trading probe could test that theory. The FBI this week searched the offices of three hedge funds, and some of Wall Street’s most influential firms, including Janus Capital Group, have been subpoenaed in the probe. On Wednesday, an employee of a firm that supplied market intelligence to hedge funds was arrested and charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit securities fraud. It was not yet known whether the man dealt with the funds raided this week. For Swenson, the allegations of insider trading are unnerving, particularly on top of the “flash crash” in May, when a computerized selling program set off a chain reaction that drove the Dow Jones industrials down nearly 1,000 points in mere minutes. The sell-off was a reminder to some individual investors that hedge funds and other powerful traders use computer programs to make rapid-fire stock trades, giving them an advantage over the slower smaller investor. “The hedge funds are resorting to more questionable tactics. It’s mind-boggling,” says Swenson, who invests largely in exchange-traded funds, which track market indexes and can be traded throughout the day, unlike mutual funds. Spitzer says the new insider trading probes illustrate how the game is tilted against small investors. “If you are sitting there in front of a screen, thinking your information is going to be good enough to make smart judgments that will permit you to outperform the hundreds of thousands of people on Wall Street who have access to better information and more timely information than you, you’re mistaken,” Spitzer says. It’s not the first time small investors have been scared out of stocks. Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College who has written 18 books on the history of markets, says investors balked at buying for years after the Crash of 1929 and Black Monday in 1987. The view both times: The odds are stacked against the little guy. To combat such an impression, the Securities and Exchange Commission was established in 1934, and “circuit breakers” were instituted after the 1987 crash to stop massive selling. But all of the safeguards don’t seem to be helping lately. “If the stock markets had any reputation for integrity, they lost it in the past year,” Geisst says. Restoring small investors’ confidence may depend on whether they see ample evidence that federal regulators are successfully cracking down on bad behavior, says Ross B. Intelisano, a securities fraud attorney with the firm Rich & Intelisano. The market needs them back. Most of the stock in U.S. companies, both public and private, is held by individuals, not institutions, according to Federal Reserve data. Small investors may be comforted to know that professional investors don’t always fare better, even with the edge they have over the masses. Numerous studies have shown that mutual funds overseen by professional stock pickers often are outperformed by computer-driven index funds. The record for hedge funds hasn’t been so impressive, either. Since 2008, when the number of those funds hit 10,000, nearly 3,000 have gone out of business, according to Hedge Fund Research in Chicago. “The edge is hugely exaggerated,” says Richard Ferri, founder of the investment advisory firm Portfolio Solutions and an advocate of low-cost index funds. “If the small investor does the right thing, he can do better than 99 percent of anyone else.” ___ Associated Press writer Michael Gormley contributed to this report from Albany, N.Y.

Read the full article →

Michael Tasner: My Favorite Things, Oprah Style

November 24, 2010

My favorite Oprah episode of the year (yes I admit it, I watch Oprah from time to time) is her “Favorite Things Show.” While I understand these are not always her favorite things (as companies pay handsomely for the product placement), I simply love watching the audience reaction when they hear they are getting things like: • Diamond Earings worth $2000 • A Volkswagon Beetle (the new 2012) • High end Pot Set worth $500 • And Beyond In following Oprah’s Favorite things show, I decided to release my first ever “Michael’s Favorite Things.” One big thing I do want to point out, however, is that these really are my favorite things, and I was not paid by any of these companies to mention their names. Here we go… Project Management: BaseCampHQ — Most companies have a variety of projects going on at the same time and lots of moving pieces. We found that it was essential for clients to have everything in a central place, especially with projects that we had to involve outside vendors. We turned to Basecamp and have never looked back. For example, all of our design projects are in Basecamp with milestone dates and to-do items so everyone can see everything. It has saved us quite a bit of time and headaches. Document Sharing and Email: Google — There are some days when I say Google more than my own name. My staff and I simply use Google for pretty much everything. From email and sharing files to creating slide shows, all stored in the cloud. It’s an amazing tool and at $50/year it’s totally worth the money. Managing Customers: Salesforce.com — One area that I’ve noticed most people need some support is in managing their customers and their leads. Many people simply don’t track this information, and if they do track the information it’s all over the place and incomplete. We’ve been using Salesforce.com for over five years and have found it to be an amazing tool. We track our leads, customers, contracts, and even our contractors through Salesforce.com. The data is once again stored in “the cloud”, so you can access the information from anywhere without having to download any software. Video Conferencing: Skype — As I have contractors throughout the world, it wouldn’t make sense for me to buy a phone plan for everyone, so we turn to Skype. While I’ve had a love/hate relationship with Skype (sometimes it simply does not work), it has been an amazing tool. When you take a step back and realize you are talking to someone halfway across the world for free, and with video it makes you wonder where technology will be in another five years or so. Web Sites: Wordpress — Boy do I love Wordpress. Every web site that we designed in the last 12-18 months has been in Wordpress. It’s easy to use, easy to customize and has the option of being scaled to drastic levels using one of the tens of thousands of plug-ins. Member Sites: Wish List Member — Passive, reoccurring revenue has been the name of the game in a down economy. We’ve been accomplishing that through membership-based web sites. As all the sites we design have been in Wordpress, we wanted to find a really cool plug-in that makes making membership sites a breeze, then we stumbled upon Wish List Member (created by two really cool guys). The plug-in has rocked our socks off and seems to get better every version they release. Sharing Files: Dropbox — Last but not least, Dropbox. Remember the days of sending files (small or large) back and forth or using a site like Yousendit.com. Those days are long gone. Install Dropbox on your computer (s) and you’re in business. You can upload files and it will automatically sync those files with your other computers in the office. Need to share a folder or file with someone? Right click share, put in their email and the files start transferring to their computers. My favorite part — if you share a folder with someone once, anytime you move anything into the folder it gets shared with them automatically, like magic! I could have went on and on with some of my other favorite things but I wanted to limit the list to seven things that you should be using regardless of your business size. These tools are all easy to use and can be deployed quite quickly. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone in the US. And to everyone else, have a rocking week!

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: The Market Is Rigged Against You

November 24, 2010

Every day millions of shares of stocks and mutual funds are traded on the national exchanges. The system is premised on an equal playing field. Buyers and sellers are supposed to have access to the same information in order to make decisions about whether to buy or sell. Many have long suspected this premise is false. We know the “big boys” have access to super computers which provide trading information nanoseconds before it’s available to others, giving them the opportunity to use this data before it’s known to the average investor. It’s called “high frequency trading” but it’s really nothing more than legalized front running . According to an article in the Wall Street Journal , this is child’s play compared to the inside trading that pervades the markets. The article reports a three year investigation by federal authorities that could “ensnare consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders and analysts across the nation…” Who is on the wrong side of these trades? The average Joe who is trying to save enough for retirement. Even without this illegal activity, the securities industry practically insures most investors squander their money. The industry wants you to believe some “guru” (usually your friendly broker) has the skill to pick stocks or mutual funds that will beat market returns. A recent study by Standard and Poors demonstrates the confusion between luck and skill which is fostered by these “experts.” The study found that, over the five years ending September 2009, only 4.27% of large-cap funds, 3.98% mid-cap funds, and 9.13% small-cap funds were able to repeat their top-half or top quartile rankings. No large- or mid-cap funds, and only one small-cap fund maintained a top quartile ranking over the same period. Over longer periods, persistence of performance generally was less than you would expect from random chance. Other studies support the view that stellar performance by actively managed mutual funds can be attributed to luck and not skill. The ramifications of the insider trading scandals and these studies are profound and largely ignored by retail investors. If mutual fund managers had skill, you would expect a high correlation between past returns and future returns. This correlation does not exist. Since they don’t have skill, relying on them to produce outsized returns is gambling and not investing. While that is depressing enough, add the fact that the entity on the other side of your trade may have inside information that gives them an unfair edge. The conclusion is both inescapable but elusive for most investors: Your goal should be to capture market returns, using a globally diversified portfolio of low cost index funds, in an asset allocation appropriate for you. This means firing your market beating broker or advisor and selling all of your individual stocks, bonds and actively managed mutual funds. You can be a victim or victor in your quest for financial security. You are looking for guidance in all the wrong places if you a relying on the securities industry to help you get there. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice .

Read the full article →

Michael Pento: Does the Fed Create Money?

November 23, 2010

Certain deflationists have recently gone on record saying that the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet is meaningless with regard to creating inflation because our central bank can’t print money, it can only create bank reserves. The problem with their view is that it both disregards the definition of money and ignores the process of creating bank reserves. Money is commonly defined as “a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.” The Fed creates a “readily liquefiable account” when creating excess bank reserves, so it is also creating money. Since inflation is properly defined as an increase in the money supply, the Fed unquestionably creates both money and inflation when it creates reserves. The deflationists’ error is to suppose that because the amount of currency has not grown, the money supply hasn’t grown. But the Fed never creates currency — all the printing is handled by Treasury; instead, it creates bank deposits which are held at the Fed. In ignoring this “base money,” the deflationists make no distinction between having the Fed’s balance sheet at $800 billion or $3 trillion. Doing so is a huge mistake for both making investment decisions and predicting asset price levels. In short, for deflationists to be correct, they must contend that only money which is currently in circulation can be considered inflationary, i.e. lead to rising prices. Therefore, they must also believe that all increases in demand and time deposits should not be included in the money supply and should not be considered inflationary. This isn’t just wrong, it’s grossly wrong. Not only do the Fed’s monetary additions increase the money supply, but the effect can be vastly multiplied through the fractional reserve system. Also, the process of creating bank reserves always first involves the purchase of an asset by the central bank. The Fed issues electronic credits to banks in exchange for bank assets, including Treasuries. Its purchases drive up the demand for those assets, bringing about rising prices. In fact, Bernanke has clearly stated that the purpose of his “quantitative easing” program is to raise the rate of inflation, which in his mind is too low. What the Fed is accomplishing is a reduction in the purchasing power of the US dollar. It creates inflation by vastly increasing the money supply and thus, lowers the confidence of those holding the greenback. If international confidence in the dollar is shaken, most dollar-based asset prices will increase — with the exception of US debt. Deflationists also ignore the rise in prices that is occurring because of the potential insolvency of the US government. It is not dissimilar to what happened to Enron shares. Once the accounting scandal broke, the purchasing power of Enron shares plummeted. It was not because of an increase in the number of shares outstanding, but because of an epiphany on the part of investors that the company was totally bankrupt. Logically, shares representing a stake in a doomed company lost all of their value. Likewise, aggregate prices will soar if global investors lose confidence in the dollar due to the realization that the US is incapable of servicing its debt. Whatever the deflationists may claim about the money supply, the objective indicators are not looking good for Uncle Sam. The dollar’s decline is abundantly evident when compared to gold, commodity prices, other currencies, real estate, and the list goes on. The national debt now stands at over $13.7 trillion, some 94% of GDP. Either due to an insolvent currency backed by a bankrupt nation or because of the Federal Reserve’s endless money printing, I have no doubt that the deflationists have it completely wrong. Michael Pento is the Senior Economist for Euro Pacific Capital

Read the full article →

Meredith Bagby: What’s So Wrong With Simpson-Bowles?

November 23, 2010

The Simpson-Bowles Deficit Plan is unraveled (the good and the bad) by Harvard senior Sam Barr, publisher of the Annual Report of the USA : As a liberal and a deficit hawk (the two aren’t mutually exclusive), I think there’s actually a lot to like in the Simpson-Bowles plan, which makes it disappointing that the proposals have been so coolly received. But there’s plenty to be skeptical about, too. We need a frank discussion to separate the wheat from the chaff, but we aren’t getting that from Washington. Let’s begin with the good. The plan would eliminate a popular tax deduction, the mortgage-interest deduction, which costs a ton of money and primarily benefits the wealthy. This is a political sacred cow, and Simpson-Bowles commendably puts it on the table. It also recommends increasing the gas tax and cutting farm subsidies, two important but inevitably unpopular changes that the country benefits from hearing a Republican and Democrat advocate. Similar sentiments apply to the plan’s discussion of defense spending, which it insists should be reduced by over $100 billion in 2015. This is a good start, and already we are seeing the Republican Party split at the seams between serious deficit hawks and flunkeys for the military-industrial complex. Simpson-Bowles also has an admirable take on long-term health care spending, which is the key to the whole deficit-reduction puzzle. In attacking other pieces of the plan, liberals have overlooked the fact that Simpson-Bowles endorses the cost-control measures of the Democrats’ signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. For example, it proposes to strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board by subjecting all health care providers to IPAB’s recommendations. (The ACA gave hospitals a reprieve until 2018.) Simpson-Bowles should get credit for rejecting Republicans’ claims that health care reform was a budget-buster, and for suggesting that, if we don’t meet our cost-control targets, we should implement a public option to help us do that. Now for the bad news. First, on taxes. Not only would Simpson-Bowles end the mortgage-interest tax deduction, but all tax credits and deductions, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits the working poor. And the plan puts over 90% of the money saved from eliminating these credits and deductions into lowering tax rates, not reducing the deficit. Why a deficit-reduction plan wouldn’t actually try to reduce the deficit, rather than give away tax cuts, is beyond me. The only explanation is that, otherwise, Republicans wouldn’t go along with it. Of course, Republicans won’t go along with it anyway. And what about those programs Simpson-Bowles proposes to cut? Many liberals have made a fuss about Social Security, which the plan would nudge towards welfare by increasing benefits for the lowest earners while increasing taxes and reducing benefits for the highest. But I’d like to focus on the domestic discretionary budget, which is where Simpson-Bowles finds a huge chunk of its savings. It’s very easy to slash the domestic discretionary budget. It’s been done for decades by both parties, and there really isn’t anything left to squeeze out of it. Simpson-Bowles proposes cutting the federal workforce by 10% and freezing employees’ salaries for three years. This accepts on faith the conservative assumption that the government is doing something now that it shouldn’t be doing. But what, exactly? Prosecuting criminals? Funding medical research? Building levees, tunnels, and bridges? (All of the above?) The fact that Simpson-Bowles spends equal energy on domestic discretionary spending and Social Security as on health care, the biggest driver of long-term debt, is very disconcerting. My worry is that it will be easy for Republicans to latch on to the domestic spending cuts while conveniently overlooking everything else. And then it will be hard for Democrats to say no. Why? Because it always is. Everything’s a battle in today’s Washington, and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi aren’t going to go to bat for discretionary spending. Hence my concern about the Simpson-Bowles plan. In a vacuum, it’s not such a bad proposal. The question is whether Democrats will be able to stand up to Republicans when they grab hold only of those aspects of the plan that fit with their interests and ideology. About that I have serious doubts. Join the discussion: www.annualreportusa.com

Read the full article →