nfl

Huffington Post…

U.S. authorities hunting in Swiss banks for suspected tax cheats have a new weapon in their arsenal: an arcane but aggressive legal maneuver more commonly used against drug smugglers, money launderers and Imelda Marcos, widow of the Philippine dictator. Backed by court judges, federal prosecutors are issuing subpoenas — official papers which compel the recipients to provide potentially damning evidence — to United States taxpayers suspected of holding hidden accounts at Swiss and other offshore banks, according to criminal defense lawyers whose clients have received the papers. The grand jury subpoenas are unusual in that they ask bank clients — not the banks themselves — to turn over to the authorities their bank account details since 2003, including statements with the highest annual balances. Taxpayers who refuse to comply potentially face a stark choice: be found in contempt of court and thus subject to civil or criminal fines and jail time, or disclose potentially incriminating evidence against themselves. “This is a very hot issue right now,” said Nathan Hochman, former assistant attorney general for the Tax Division of the Justice Department who is now in private practice at the law firm Bingham McCutchen. Hochman said that defense lawyers representing taxpayers were furious over the tactic, which already has been challenged in some courts. NEW TACTIC IN SHOWDOWN The subpoenas, at least a dozen of which have been issued over the past year or so, are the latest twist in a showdown between Switzerland and the United States over the battered tradition of Swiss bank secrecy. Swiss law, dating to 1934 and stemming from a medieval tradition, protects client bank information from disclosure; bankers who reveal client details can face jail time. The subpoenas are evidence of tensions between Switzerland, the global capital of offshore wealth with an estimated $2 trillion in hidden assets, and the U.S. Justice Department, which is conducting criminal investigations of 11 Swiss banks suspected of enabling tens of thousands of wealthy Americans to evade U.S. taxes through secret bank accounts holding billions of dollars in hidden assets. The banks include Credit Suisse AG , which received a target letter last July notifying it that it was formally under criminal scrutiny; HSBC Holdings plc , and Basler Kantonalbank, a large Swiss cantonal, or regional, bank. The Justice Department is seeking to force the banks to disclose American client names and account information and pay hefty fines or face serious consequences, including possible indictment or deferred-prosecution agreements. “The number one thing is the customer data — it is at the heart of the issue,” said a U.S. government official briefed on the matter and on the subpoenas. Earlier this month, the upper house of the Swiss parliament backed an amendment that would allow Switzerland to compel its banks to hand over American client data, even if authorities don’t already know the client names; the lower house still has to approve it. The amendment covers an existing tax treaty between the United States and Switzerland in which the Alpine country has agreed to hand over client data but generally only if the U.S. side already knows the client’s identity. Tax lawyers representing clients receiving the subpoenas, known as Title 31 subpoenas, say that U.S. prosecutors are effectively staging an end-run around the treaty process. “The government is looking for a shortcut to traditional investigative steps in an international case,” said a tax lawyer in Washington, D.C., who declined to be identified because he represented a taxpayer indicted by a grand jury in a sealed case. Title 31 is a part of the U.S. Code of Laws that deals with money and finance. Federal prosecutors used the Title 31 subpoena strategy against Imelda Marcos around 1990 as part of a federal inquiry into bribes allegedly paid by Westinghouse Electric Corp to the Philippine government, according to prosecutors. American taxpayers receiving the subpoenas include those who applied too late to one of two IRS voluntary disclosure programs, as well as clients who appear to have been “outed” by a clutch of recently indicted or charged Swiss bankers. Federal prosecutors suspect that the nearly 20,000 U.S. taxpayers who came forward under the programs represent a fraction of the total tax evaders. LEGAL WRANGLING At issue is a U.S. legal principle known as the required records exception to the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Courts have ruled that the amendment, granting persons the right not to be forced to incriminate themselves, has an important exception for “required records” that must be kept for activities that are regulated and of a “public” nature. Federal prosecutors issuing the court-backed subpoenas argue that offshore private banking falls into this category of activity. But courts have issued conflicting opinions on whether that reasoning is correct. Last August, in a closely watched case brought by a wealthy California taxpayer known only by the initials M.H., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a district court’s prior ruling that M.H. was in contempt of court for refusing to produce the bank documents. Meanwhile, last September, a federal judge in Texas ruled that a different taxpayer did not have to comply with a subpoena for bank records because the records did not fall under the required records doctrine. The Justice Department is appealing against that ruling, according to court papers. According to a criminal defense lawyer in Washington, D.C., with a client who has received a subpoena, the subpoenas are “tantamount to a required confession — the production and authentication of records that are not in a regulated industry and have none of the ‘public’ aspects of other required records cases.” The lawyer added that “while it may be a clever attempt, it pushes the ‘required records’ aspects of 5th Amendment case law to — and most of us think well beyond — its limits.” The lawyer declined to be identified, citing confidentiality rules governing grand jury subpoenas. But he added that some banks were “dragging their feet” in turning over documents to clients, while others, in particular “smaller banks,” were refusing to do so. He did not identify the banks. Jeremy Temkin, a criminal tax lawyer at Morvillo Abramovitz in New York, called the subpoenas on bank clients “an extension of the pressure on the Swiss to pressure on the American taxpayer. It’s a very aggressive position.” (Editing By Howard Goller, Phil Berlowitz) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

View original post here:
U.S. Using New Tactic For Finding Suspected Swiss Bank Tax Cheats

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

Excessively loud television commercials should be a thing of the past, thanks to the Federal Communications Commission. Responding to years of complaints that the volume on commercials was much louder than that of the programming that the ads accompany, the FCC on Tuesday passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act to make sure that the sound level is the same for commercials and news and entertainment programming.

Read more from the original source:
Loud TV Commercials May Soon Be A Thing Of The Past

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

{ 0 comments }

Occupy Denver To Disrupt Loveland Walmart

December 12, 2011

Occupy Denver is planning a rally to disrupt the large Walmart Distribution Center in Loveland on Monday. The rally is intended to show solidarity and support for the simultaneous protests planned to shut down West Coast ports from San Diego to Alaska coordinated by other occupy movements, according to CNN . (SCROLL DOWN FOR LIVESTREAM VIDEO) In a press release , Occupy Denver had this to say about the Walmart rally: On 12/12 Occupy Denver will be rallying at the Walmart Distribution Center, 7500 Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado, in order to illustrate the problems with a globalization solely based on the interests of multi-national corporations and total disregard for human values or human beings. Occupy Denver will be joined by Occupy Salt Lake City as well as seven labor unions, according to Occupy Denver’s Facebook page . Occupy SLC made this statement about the Walmart disruption on their website : As West Coast Occupations shut down their ports and the East Coast Occupations shut down their waterfront on December 12th, 2011, Occupy Denver has given a call for occupations to organize mass mobilizations across the nation to support these actions. Occupy Salt Lake will stand in solidarity with Occupy Denver and others by disrupting the distribution system of Walmart, an excessively oppressive corporation that is actively destroying communities throughout our nation. Occupy Denver protesters plan to meet at 8 a.m. at Civic Center Park for caravans to the site, according to their Facebook page . Below is the full press release from Occupy Denver. For more information visit OccupyDenver.org . Considering the coordinated attacks on the Occupations and attacks on workers: Occupy Denver stands in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who will be protesting the abuses of the economic apparatus of the 1% on Dec 12. The wanton pursuit of profit at the expense of human values by multinational corporations with no local grounding has destroyed communities throughout the world, disregarded workers’ natural rights, eliminated production jobs in the United States and sweatshops abroad, and lowered the standard of living for all, only to enrich the wealthy by manipulating the laws and base corruption. At the same time, coordinated nationwide police attacks have turned our cities into battlegrounds in an effort to disrupt our Occupy movement, which is protesting this state of affairs while our politicians are neglecting the very serious issues we are raising. We call on every occupation to organize a mass mobilization on December 12 in support of the actions taken across the US, especially those on the West Coast against Goldman Sachs and other bankers. On 12/12 Occupy Denver will be rallying at the Walmart Distribution Center, 7500 Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado, in order to illustrate the problems with a globalization solely based on the interests of multi-national corporations and total disregard for human values or human beings.

Read the full article →

Agribusiness Giant To Lay Off 2,000 Employees Globally

December 4, 2011

U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill Inc CARG.UL said it would let go of 2,000 of its employees globally, citing a continued weak global economy. Minneapolis-based Cargill, one of the world’s largest privately held corporations, said the job cuts affect 1.5 percent of its workforce of 138,000 employees located in 63 countries and will take place over the next six months. “At this time, we do not have any breakdowns. We do know they will not be concentrated in any one city, country or region,” Lisa Clemens, a Cargill spokeswoman based in Minneapolis, told Reuters. The company said the workforce reductions were made on recommendations from various business units and was not a “uniform across-the-board” cut. Cargill added it was making internal structural changes, following a review of its global energy, transportation and metals operations. On November 30, market sources told Reuters that Cargill’s unit, Cargill Ferrous International, was shutting down its physical steel trading desks in Hong Kong and Geneva. Cargill earnings for the quarter ended August 31 were down 66 percent at $236 million due to economic uncertainty and volatile commodity markets. The company is providing employees with severance and outplacement support. (Reporting by Christine Stebbins in Chicago and Vidya L Nathan in Bangalore; Editing by Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Controversial Naperville ‘Breastaurant’ Goes Out Of Business

December 3, 2011

A controversial suburban Chicago restaurant known for its scantily-clad waitresses and the community outrage it attracted has closed its doors after being open for less than a year. Show-Me’s, located at 1126 E. Ogden Ave. in Naperville, closed abruptly on Wednesday. A restaurant franchise investor, Jay Madipadaga, told the Daily Herald that mechanical issues and management problems forced the business to close . (Scroll down to watch a video report on the eatery’s closing.) But Naperville Patch reports that the restaurant’s closing arrives on the heels of months of scrutiny from community members concerned about how the Missouri-owned business’s provocatively-dressed employees reflected on the rest of the west suburban city . The city had previously asked the business to institute a stricter dress code for its waitresses — who wore tank tops and short shorts — and close at midnight each day. The city also forced the business to refrain from installing outdoor seating. Madipadaga added to the Daily Herald that he didn’t feel his business was ever given a fair shake by the community, though he admitted they probably should have done more research before putting down stakes in the relatively socially conservative city. “I don’t think we got a fair chance from people,” he said. “But we didn’t know a whole lot about the neighborhood, and that was probably our mistake.” Naperville Mayor George Pradel admitted to the Chicago Tribune that he spent more time handling issues around Show-Me’s than any other restaurant in the city, but that most of those issues arose from community members ” calling in all the time and saying this and saying that, and most of it was unfounded .”

Read the full article →

Report: Jaguars To Be Sold To Illinois Businessman

November 29, 2011

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The Jacksonville Jaguars have reached an agreement to sell the small-market franchise to Illinois businessman Shahid Khan. Majority owner Wayne Weaver made the announcement Tuesday, hours after he fired coach Jack Del Rio and gave general manager Gene Smith a three-year contract extension. He said Khan will have 100 percent control of the team. Weaver called Khan “a great American success story” and said the Pakistan-born entrepreneur will keep the team in Jacksonville. Khan is the owner and CEO of the Flex-N-Gate Group based in Urbana, Ill. Khan had been a candidate to buy controlling interest in the St. Louis Rams last year. The sale of the franchise and the firing of Del Rio are the city’s most significant news since the team’s inception in 1993.

Read the full article →

‘What The Hell Are We Paying You For?’

November 29, 2011

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) slammed President Barack Obama at a press conference in Camden, N.J. Monday for the super committee’s failure. “I was angry this weekend listening to the spin coming out of the administration about the failure of the super committee,” said Christie. “The president knew that it was doomed for failure so he didn’t get involved. Well, then what the hell are we paying you for? It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing exactly?” he said. ( Video above via Christie’s YouTube account.) The president, however, released a plan (pdf) to Congress entitled “Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future,” outlining $3 trillion in net savings over the next decade. Obama blamed Republicans’ refusal to raise taxes for the failure of the super committee. The Obama administration has also dismissed the idea that the president would change the construction of the automatic spending cut triggers, scheduled to take effect in 2013, to lessen the impact on defense spending. The automatic cuts contain $600 billion in defense cuts and $600 billion in Medicare and domestic spending cuts. The 12-member super committee, formally known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, was set to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings, but failed to meet its Nov. 23 deadline. Christie announced in early October that he would not run for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. He endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president. Christie said both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party movement “look at Washington D.C. and they look at a president who is a bystander in the Oval Office.” He added that both movements come from the same frustration about government. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have expressed that the movements arose from similar frustrations.

Read the full article →

Facebook Said To Ready Biggest Announcement Ever

November 29, 2011

(Reuters) – Facebook Inc is looking to go public between April and June 2012 with a valuation of over $100 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. The social media giant is considering raising as much as $10 billion in its IPO, the report said. Sources familiar with the matter said the company has not made any decision over which banks will be involved in the IPO. Facebook’s CFO David Ebersman is in talks with Silicon Valley bankers about an IPO, but founder CEO Mark Zuckerberg has not decided on any terms of the IPO, the Journal said. (Reporting by Vidya L Nathan in Bangalore; editing by Andre Grenon) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Jerry Brown vs. Community Government

November 11, 2011

By Judy Lin and Paul Elias, Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers asserted their right to eliminate community redevelopment agencies and divert billions of tax dollars to fund schools and other services in oral arguments Thursday before the California Supreme Court. Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody, who represented the state, said redevelopment agencies were created by the Legislature, so lawmakers have the power to dissolve them and impose new requirements if they want to continue operating. Steven Mayer, the attorney representing cities and redevelopment agencies, told justices the state’s actions this year are illegal because they constitute the type of raid on local government money that voters banned in 2010. The case has long-term implications for state budgeting. The state is counting on $1.7 billion from the agencies in this year’s budget and $400 million a year thereafter. It also will determine the fate of about 400 redevelopment agencies, which primarily are controlled by cities and counties and are used to promote construction projects and rehabilitate downtrodden business districts. Critics say many of those agencies have strayed from that intent and audits have revealed some misuse of funds, a portion of which is intended to be used for low-income housing. The Supreme Court is expected to rule before Jan. 15. During an hour-long hearing before the justices, Mayer argued that Proposition 22, passed by voters in November with 61 percent of the vote, protects redevelopment agencies from tampering by the Legislature. He said the state violated the measure in eliminating redevelopment agencies. Mayer said the Legislature’s offer to keep the agencies in business if they give up a large portion of their funding is unconstitutional. He compared that option to a bank teller receiving a note from a robber saying, “The money or your life.” He said most agencies will make payments so they can continue to operate. Justice Carol Corrigan picked up on the bank robber analogy when she asked Moody if the state was demanding “ransom” from the agencies to stay in business. “It’s hard to argue it’s a voluntary payment,” Corrigan said. Moody contended lawmakers had the authority to eliminate the agencies despite Proposition 22. He said the measure did not strip control of redevelopment agencies from the Legislature, which passed legislation in 1945 allowing cities and counties to establish redevelopment agencies. “Proposition 22 had an extremely limited purpose,” Moody said. He said Brown was confronted with a historic deficit when he took office and had to make tough budget choices immediately after assuming office in January. ___ Lin reported from Sacramento.

Read the full article →

Manager Of World’s Largest Bond Fund: ‘I’m Just Having A Bad Year’

October 16, 2011

NEW YORK (Jennifer Ablan) – Bill Gross, manager of the world’s largest bond fund, apologized to his investors late Friday for his poor performance, saying “I’m just having a bad year.” In a Special Edition letter posted on PIMCO’s website, Gross, who runs the $242 billion PIMCO Total Return portfolio, wrote that he underestimated the contagion effect from the Europe debt crisis and the U.S. debt ceiling debacle. “As Europe’s crisis and the U.S. debt ceiling debacle turned developed economies toward a potential recession, the Total Return Fund had too little risk off and too much risk on,” said Gross, who also shares the title of co-chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co. with Mohamed El-Erian. Gross, known as the “bond king”, came under heavy criticism earlier this year when he bet heavily against U.S. Treasuries which have turned out to be one of the biggest outperformers of 2011. His fund’s poor performance led Gross to simply call his open letter to investors, “Mea Culpa.” It is up only 1.06 percent year to date versus the benchmark BarCap U.S. Aggregate Index which is up 3.99 percent. Gross, who helps manage more than $1.2 trillion at PIMCO, said late Friday the Total Return fund had positions in German bonds and Canadian Treasuries to counter the U.S. underweight position, “but not enough.” He added that minor percentages of emerging market corporate and sovereign debt, effectively denominated in their local non-dollar currencies, did not perform well either. “The simple fact is that the portfolio at midyear was positioned for what we call a “New Normal” developed world economy – 2.0 percent real growth and 2 percent inflation,” Gross said. That’s all changed, of course. Gross said PIMCO’s internal growth forecast for developed economies “is now zero percent over the coming several quarters and the portfolio more accurately reflects this posture.” Last week, Reuters reported that Gross ramped up buying of mortgage-backed securities in September, albeit by using leverage, on the likelihood the Federal Reserve’s reinvestment program in those securities will boost prices significantly. Gross increased mortgage debt to 38 percent of assets in September, from 32 percent in August, as the U.S. central bank announced last month that it “will now reinvest principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities.” His move into mortgage-backed securities also comes as the PIMCO Total Return fund’s cash equivalents and money-market securities fell to negative 19 percent September, from negative 9.0 percent in August. In having a so-called negative position in cash equivalents and money-market securities, it is an indication of using derivatives and short-term securities as collateral in order to boost the fund’s buying power with leverage. Gross’ move to seek more yield by putting more money into mortgage bonds is yet another bold bet which many will be watching after Gross’s call on Treasuries cost his fund’s performance. In doing so, he is effectively extending the average duration of his fund’s investments, making them potentially more exposed to a rise interest rates. Clearly, Gross is betting interest rates will remain low for some time as the world economy continues to struggle. In his “mea culpa” letter, Gross resorted to baseball analogies and metaphors. He closed his letter by saying: “This is big league ball, where your ticket holders come to the park expecting not a circus-Willie Mays-catch but more wins than losses and a year-end performance that places your bond assets near the top of the standings.” He added, “Baseball metaphors aside, we know why PIMCO Total Return is arguably the largest and hopefully the greatest bond fund in the world.” Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Chris Christie Deals Heavy Blow To MTV’s ‘Jersey Shore’

September 26, 2011

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) yanked $420,000 in tax credits away from the MTV reality-show “Jersey Shore” on Monday. “I have no interest in policing the content of such projects,” Christie wrote in a letter to the New Jersey Economic Development Authority informing them of his veto. “However, as chief executive I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the state and its citizens.” The tax credits came from a program aimed at encouraging more TV shows and movies to be filmed in the state as an economic development initiative. The show, which is the most widely watched program in MTV’s history, was originally approved for tax credits in 2009. Local officials in Seaside Heights said there had been a boost in economic activity , but Christie has been a vocal critic of the tax program as a whole and the show in particular, and said he was surprised when he first learned “Jersey Shore” was receiving so much in tax credits. He said he received calls from a national coalition of Italian-Americans to veto the tax credits. Christie’s decision received the support of state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Monday. “I can’t believe we are paying for fake tanning for ‘Snooki’ and ‘The Situation’, and I am not even sure $420,000 covers that,” said State Rep. Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth). State Sen. Joe Vitale (D-Middlesex) told the New Jersey Star-Ledger that “This is a show that uses bigoted remarks,” and said he was glad the governor exercised his veto power. Read Christie’s letter below: Governor Christie Vetoes EDA Minutes Earlier on HuffPost:

Read the full article →

Citigroup To Start Charging Customers For Not Having Enough Money

September 16, 2011

Citigroup Inc said it will start charging a monthly fee of $10 on checking and savings accounts with combined balances of less than $1,500, joining a growing list of banks seeking to recoup revenue lost under new financial industry regulations. The fee will be waived if a customer completes one direct deposit and one online bill payment per month through an account, or maintains a balance of at least $1,500 in checking and savings accounts, Citigroup said on Friday The change takes effect in December. Under Citi’s current fee structure, customers are not required to maintain minimum account balances but must complete five transactions a month through an account to avoid a monthly fee of $8. Citigroup said it will not charge for debit card use or online bill payment. Stephen Troutner, head of banking products for Citi’s U.S. consumer bank, said free debit card use could woo customers from other banks that are weighing whether to charge for debit card use, such as JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Co. “Customers have told us in no uncertain terms that is a huge source of irritation,” Troutner said. New York-based Citi is the latest bank to tinker with its fee structure following changes in U.S. consumer banking regulations and laws over the last two years. New regulations — part of a broad financial sector reform effort — limit overdraft fees and other penalty fees banks can charge. In response, many banks have begun introducing monthly service fees for accounts, debit card use and visits to branches. Bank of America Corp, the largest U.S. bank by assets, added checking account fees last year. The BofA changes include an ebanking account, which allows customers to use ATMs and online banking for free but charges a monthly fee of $7 for teller visits or receiving paper statements. (Reporting by Joe Rauch in Charlotte, N.C.; editing by John Wallace) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

New Data Shows Poverty Rates In Illinois On The Rise

September 14, 2011

Some depressing statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau Tuesday show that Illinois is currently home to more poor people than was the case nearly two decades ago. As the Chicago Sun-Times reports, more than 1.82 million people lived at or below the poverty level in Illinois last year compared to 1.69 million in the year before — percentage-wise, that’s an increase of 14.1 percent from 13.2 percent in 2009. While Illinois’ poverty rate is high, it is still lower than the current national average, which is a whopping 15.1 percent, or just more than 46 million Americans. The number is the highest-ever since the Census Bureau began reporting poverty rates in 1959. The number of uninsured Illinois residents is also on the rise. The Sun-Times reports that 1.91 million people, or 14.8 percent of the state’s population last year are without health insurance, up from 14.2 percent or 1.81 million in 2009. Relatedly, the number of long-term unemployed Illinoisans, those who have not found a job in more than 26 weeks of searching, is also at a near-record high. The Chicago Tribune reports that the poverty figures are being felt locally at food pantries, low-income resource centers and homeless shelters throughout the Chicagoland area . Bob Dolgan, a spokesman for the Greater Chicago Food Depository, said his organization, which operates some 650 shelters and pantries in the area said they’ve serviced 5.1 million individual visits during the most recent fiscal year. Three years ago, that number was only 3.2 million. As recently as 1999, the Illinois’ poverty rate was just 10.7 percent . According to a report issued late last year by the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, emphasized that child poverty rates and “extreme poverty” rates — the number of those living on less than half the federal poverty threshold — has also been steadily on the rise over the past decade. The Census Bureau defines poverty as having a household income of $11,139 or less for one person and $22,314 for a family of four. Without unemployment insurance or other government assistance, the reported poverty rate would have been even higher. According to the Associated Press, University of Chicago professor Bruce Meyer said the worst still be coming down the pike in terms of poverty levels both in Illinois and nationwide as demand continues to increase for food stamps and other government assistance — a safety net that is under serious threat of drastic cutbacks given the state’s dire financial straits . Photo by gregorywass via Flickr .

Read the full article →

WATCH: Highlights From Obama Jobs Speech

September 9, 2011

President Barack Obama outlined a new plan from his administration to boost job creation to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night. HuffPost’s Sam Stein relays details on the proposal: Titled the American Jobs Act, the proposal includes more than $250 billion in tax incentives for small businesses and employers, according to administration estimates. The rest of the money would be devoted to infrastructure spending, state aid, unemployment insurance, and neighborhood rehabilitation. The president will pay for the proposal by asking the congressional super committee tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction to offset the cost of the package in their proposal. Senior administration officials said that the White House plans to introduce the president’s proposal next week as a single piece of legislation. The same administration officials did not rule out the idea that the White House would petition the congressional super committee to simply include the jobs bill in the set of recommendations that they reveal later this fall. In his speech to a joint session of Congress, however, the President repeatedly made the case that quicker action is needed. Below, reaction to the president’s speech from some members of Congress via the Associated Press. Click here for full text of Obama’s remarks. “The proposals the president outlined tonight merit consideration. We hope he gives serious consideration to our ideas as well. It’s my hope that we can work together to end the uncertainty facing families and small businesses, and create a better environment for long-term economic growth and private-sector job creation.” – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. ___ “President Barack Obama laid out a set of bipartisan ideas to create jobs whose size and scope reflects the urgent need to put Americans back to work. Most of the ideas in this bill have been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. These are common-sense solutions for getting our economy moving again and spurring hiring in the private sector. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ___ “The president is politically paralyzed and philosophically incapable of doing what needs to be done. The president should take immediate action.” GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman. ___ “The president’s plan is a solid foundation for Congress to build on. It strategically combines tax incentives for small businesses with targeted investments in American workers, the education of our children and improving our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. That said, I would have liked to have seen a greater emphasis on domestic energy production and a special focus on water and flood protection for the nation.” – Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. ___ “Where we agree – like the need to pass the long pending, job creating trade agreements – we should act and act now. All we need is for the president to send Congress the agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea so the American people can begin to take advantage of the up to 250,000 jobs they will create. However, I was disappointed that the president did not discuss the one area that can truly spark sustained private-sector job creation in this country – comprehensive tax reform.” _Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a member of the supercommittee on debt reduction. ___ “Now is the time to invest in the future of our country by creating opportunities and helping out of work Americans find jobs. Many of the president’s ideas have the potential to create jobs and spark the economy.” – Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. ___ “Ultimately I think the problem is there are some things in there that are good, but by and large, it’s a proposal based on things that just won’t work, haven’t worked in the past and they won’t work in the future.” – Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. ___ “President Obama offered a clear path to help small businesses succeed and hire, provide tax relief for our workers, rebuild America, and provide aid to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It will put Americans back to work and it will be paid for.” – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. ___ “The president’s plan makes a mockery of the recent debt limit deal. That agreement cut $7 billion in appropriations next year but the president now wants to borrow hundreds of billions more to finance a second stimulus package.” – Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. ___ The president took an important and necessary step tonight: He started a serious national conversation about how to solve our jobs crisis. He showed working people that he is willing to go to the mat to create new jobs on a substantial scale. Tonight’s speech should energize the nation to come together, work hard and get serious about jobs. – AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

Read the full article →

JPMorgan CEO: S&P Downgrade ‘Just An Opinion’

August 10, 2011

Amidst downgrades, debt crises and declining stocks, one of Wall Street’s biggest names is keeping it cool. On Wednesday, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, told CNBC Tuesday that despite the current state of the economy, it’s been “business as usual” at JPMorgan. And while Standard and Poor’s credit downgrade of the U.S. cause an onslaught of emotional reactions , and preceded the sixth-worst point loss in Dow Jones history, Dimon isn’t so concerned. He says S&P ratings don’t carry quite the weight that many assume. “I think people have their right to their opinions and S&P is just an opinion,” Dimon said, referring to the downgrade. “Most people I speak to in the marketplace, the big participants, they don’t rely on S&P ratings.” As for the European debt crisis, Dimon gave no indication JPMorgan would be running for the hills. “We have manageable exposure to all of the [European] banks,” he said. “We won’t cut and run.” To Dimon, the show must go on, despite the recently winding ways of the market. “Markets are volatile, probably for pretty good reasons,” Dimon explained. “[There's] a lot of uncertainty in the world out there, but we will still open branchs tomorrow and hire bankers tomorrow and create clients tomorrow.” Watch Jamie Dimon’s appearance on CNBC here:

Read the full article →

Nonprofit Hospitals Running Out Of Cash, Face Downgrades: Moody’s

August 10, 2011

A dwindling number of patients, combined with oncoming Medicare and Medicaid cuts, are making more likely the prospect of nonprofit hospitals being issued credit rating downgrades, according to a report released Wednesday. Hospital revenues grew at an average rate of only 4 percent in 2010, a 20-year low, according to the rating agency Moody’s, which issued the report. Moreover, the rate of revenue growth is expected to keep dropping. Federal cuts in Medicare, and state efforts to save money in Medicaid spending, will hurt hospitals’ bottom line. Medicare represents about 43 percent of hospital revenues, while Medicaid accounts for another 11 percent. Nonprofit hospitals, including facilities owned by state and local governments, account for about 80 percent of acute-care hospitals in the U.S. , according to the Wall Street Journal . In addition to government cuts, hospitals must contend with a fall-off in the number of patients seeking treatment. Patient volume has declined since 2009, a drop that Moody’s attributes to the struggling economy. More people might be deciding to forgo elective surgeries, given the high unemployment and underemployment rates. When patients do visit the hospital, they’re more likely to stay for an observation period of 24 to 48 hours, rather than seek inpatient care. Observation stays require the patient to pay much less than inpatient treatment, but they cost the hospital about the same amount to provide. Last month, Moody’s announced that it had downgraded 12 nonprofit hospitals in the second quarter of 2011, compared with only three upgrades for the same time period. Those numbers are trending in a direction hospitals don’t want them to: In the first quarter of 2011 , Moody’s downgraded just six nonprofit hospitals and upgraded five. When a hospital’s rating is downgraded, it can make it more difficult for the hospital to get access to the capital it needs to function. Overall, Moody’s has maintained a negative outlook on the nonprofit health care sector since November 2008 , and expects to maintain it at least through the rest of 2011 . Fitch and Standard & Poor’s , the other two major credit rating agencies, have both given the nonprofit health care sector a stable outlook for the year. With more and more nonprofit hospitals feeling financial pressure, an increasing number are merging with larger outfits or selling themselves to for-profit companies, the Journal reports. There were 72 deals of this kind last year, the most since 2001, and already there have been another 55 transactions in 2011.

Read the full article →

Peter S. Goodman: No Secrets In America’s Latest Economic Crisis: Weak Economies, Weak Leaders

August 9, 2011

Three years ago, the last time we experienced the stomach-churning spectacle of stock markets swiftly annihilating trillions of dollars in household wealth, the unknowns were at the center of the fear. Thanks to a lengthy experiment in radical deregulation, no one really knew the size of the wagers that Wall Street’s leading financial institutions had constructed out of home mortgages, or what would happen to their balance sheets as large numbers of homeowners fell into delinquency. But this time, as stock markets again lurch wildly and panic circumnavigates the globe, what we do know is at the center of our problems: The global economy is weak and still weakening, while policymakers seem unable or unwilling to marshal a reassuring response. From the United States to Europe to Japan, economies are stagnating, and governments are tightening the straits by cutting back on spending, urged on by the same credit ratings agencies that played leading roles in getting us here. Tuesday afternoon’s pledge by the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low for at least another two years is merely an acknowledgement of this disheartening reality and does not alter it. The catalogue of knowns offers little in the way of comfort. The American economy appears increasingly vulnerable to falling into another recession, yet leaders in Washington are missing in action. The Republicans are content to watch fiscal and economic troubles of their own making burgeon into a conflagration, betting that an unsophisticated electorate will blame the current occupant of the White House come 2012. A President famous for his oratorical powers now seems like a mute caricature of his former self, recycling marginal policies while lamely insisting that forces beyond the government’s control are responsible for the storm. “There is something of a leadership failure,” Martin N. Baily, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton administration, and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, pronounced in an interview on Tuesday. “We need someone, whether like a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan, who can inspire confidence.” We know that another recession would hit at a time of 9 percent-plus unemployment, and with the social safety net ravaged by cuts. We know that the United States is effectively in a box following the downgrade of the federal government’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s late last week. The government cannot spend money to stimulate the economy without increasing the likelihood of further credit downgrades, which would invite new destabilizing consequences. Yet without some form of government intervention, the markets are left to take in the unobstructed view of an economy lacking any momentum. We have hit a fork in the road, and both routes lead somewhere we do not wish to travel. The road we are on now — Austerity Avenue — heads out for many years to an unchanging scenery of high unemployment, slow growth, diminishing wealth and social strife. The other, Stimulation Lane, runs smack into Downgrade Ditch, a messy place from which escape is not certain, a place where interest rates could spike throughout the economy and we could quickly wind up back in recession. The ironies here run in the cruel variety: Standard & Poor’s and its credit rating brethren, Moody’s and Fitch, played starring roles in creating the last financial crisis. They advised investment banks on how to turn lousy mortgages into complex securities that could garner their top ratings, collecting handsome fees in the process. Now that Uncle Sam needs fresh credit to tend to the economic mess that has resulted, the ratings agencies have become sticklers for financial details. These are merely the unfortunate things we know here in the United States, yet we also know that financial strain is a global problem. European authorities have twice rescued Greece from the prospect of default on its outsized debts. And still no one seems to believe that the Greeks — forced to swallow sharp spending cuts as a condition of aid — can possibly grow enough to keep current on what they owe. We know that similar worries dog Spain and Italy, where interest rates have been soaring, prompting theEuropean Central Bank to step forward on Monday and start buying up their bonds in a campaign to instill confidence. That move sent interest rates down a tad, but not enough to dislodge the sense of crisis. Few expect the European Central Bank to play backstop for the duration. The bank has long expressed reluctance to step directly into the fray, preferring that the continent rely on a special bailout fund established to shore up the finances of flagging members. And the market grasps clearly that the fund is stocked with 440 billion Euros — a large amount of money, to be sure, yet not nearly enough to rescue Italy and Spain, were a default scenario to present itself. “We are skeptical that this intervention tactic can end well, or even last very long,” said Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist of High Frequency Economics, a research firm, in a note to clients Tuesday morning. As Weinberg quickly added, the arsenal available to the Europeans in event of a rescue is really just a sideshow. The thing the market sees most clearly is a simple story with no good ending in sight: lots of debt, no apparent path to economic growth and a tendency toward higher interest rates, which intensifies the pressure. “We see a broad credit crunch corseting many economies at once,” Weinberg said. “Central banks have been unable to make money or credit grow since 2008. To be sure, potentially catastrophic hits to the balance sheets of bond-holding Euroland banks will not encourage them to lend more. So maybe the global equity market slide is not without reason. For without money or credit, there can be no economic growth.” The same observation applies to the United States. Ever since the financial crisis arrived in 2008, the Fed has kept interest rates near zero, operating on the established theory that, when money is free, it is more likely to be lent and borrowed, boosting economic activity and job growth. Only this time, would-be employers are focused on another known: their would-be customers have lost spending power and appetite for risk, limiting sales. So the economy stagnates, unemployment remains high and the government declines to boost demand for goods and services with fresh spending, fearing the reprimand of the credit rating agencies. This is a state of play that could last a long while. “The tools of monetary policy and fiscal policy seem to be powerless,” said Baily, the Clinton administration economic adviser. The only thing lacking in the unraveling underway is a sense of mystery. That, and a sense of urgency from our elected leaders, for whom the unemployment epidemic has apparently become a known factor, already priced into their political calculations.

Read the full article →

Robert Zevin: Deja Vu All Over Again

August 9, 2011

Many people are worried about the recent sharp declines in stock markets around the world along with increasing turmoil in other markets and ominous indications of increased violence and political malice. This is indeed a proper time to be worried. Reductions have barely begun in the debt issued during the global credit boom that crashed in 2008. As long as massive debt burdens remain, governments and households will limit their spending in an effort to retire debt. But if everyone tries to save more, the result is that everyone spends less and everyone else has less income out of which to save anything. This is the box in which the economies of the world’s richest countries have been stuck since 2008. Indeed, government debt has dramatically increased, partly because of reduced tax revenues out of reduced economic activity, partly because of bailouts and guarantees to banks and other financial institutions and partly because of all-too-modest efforts to stimulate the economy with more spending or tax cuts. The sovereign debt crisis that is now unfolding has been a frequent second act in many previous financial crashes. Eventually, government debts, financial sector debts and household debts will have to be reduced to a large extent by failure to pay some or all of the amounts due. So far this has only happened in the U.S. home mortgage market through a large number of defaults, foreclosures and occasional restructurings. It remains anathema to the still incredibly strong banking and investment industries to contemplate similar defaults by European governments or by anyone else the banks have lent money to, or by the banks themselves. At the same time it is clear to almost everyone else that the quickest way to end the European sovereign debt crisis would have been to allow Greece to exchange a much reduced amount of new debt for its probably unredeemable existing debt; and to allow Portugal and Ireland to implement similar solutions. Instead European governments and multi-national institutions continue to pursue bailouts for bondholders and more drastic punishment for ordinary workers. The anger and frustration that this foments erodes social cohesion, generates violence and further paralyzes the political process. Thus, the Tea Party gains strength even if it is a source of the problem and neo-fascist parties across Europe continue to enlarge their political base and violent presence on the street, making it more possible that they might take power in several countries. Meanwhile postponement has led to debt crises for Italy and Spain, each larger and with more solid government finances than the original victims. Today the European Central Bank is purchasing the bonds of these two governments and the Eurozone governments have pledged to do the same as soon as their legislatures approve. Followed to its logical conclusion this endless use of the best credit available to bailout bankrupt banks and governments, will lead to a sovereign debt crisis for Germany itself. In the United States, the recent debt ceiling cliff hanger was a repeat of the theatrical illusion performed in the budget debate earlier this year. Then, Obama, the Tea Party and every politician in between agreed that they had cut $39 billion out of this year’s federal government outlays. The Congressional Budget office concluded that the cuts were really a little over $300 million or less than one percent of the amount claimed. Now, the two sides have solemnly passed a bill to cut about $900 billion out of spending over the next ten years, most of it not until six or more years in the future and none of it specified as to which expenditures will be cut. In addition they have agreed to appoint a bipartisan committee to propose additional cuts (or in theory tax increases) amounting to another $1.2 trillion. In short they have not cut one penny from the amount to be spent over the next ten years, although they certainly will get around to some of it before the end of the year. No cuts in spending are certainly less bad than real cuts for the current weak economy; but the absence of clear engagement with reality and a functioning government process are close to the true heart of our current problems. It is this political make-believe and paralysis that prompted Standard and Poor’s to slightly lower its rating of US government debt. And it is proof of their correct analysis that Obama, Secretary of the Treasury, Geithner, and other members of the President’s economic team have been pointing their fingers at the rating agency, claiming it made a two-trillion-dollar error that the White House corrected, but still went ahead with its downgrade. This was not an error of “arithmetic” as the White House claims, but an exercise of good judgment in selecting which of a vast array of “baseline” deficit projections to use to calculate the possible savings from the new legislation. Choosing and fudging baselines is the heart of the Washington shell game. For example, if you assume that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will go on forever in your baseline, and then you assume that they will end in your legislation, you can fill your deficit reduction piggy bank with hundreds of billions of dollars. S&P chose the baseline that most people outside of Washington think is realistic rather than the “official” baseline. So, they subtracted the new “savings” from a projection that was two trillion dollars higher than Obama’s. But the foundation for the ratings downgrade was the doubtfulness of the process as illustrated by the baseline game, rather than the size of projected future deficits, which have been rendered quite unpredictable by the same political process.

Read the full article →

Sources: Stern Paid Less Than Goodell, Selig

August 5, 2011

NEW YORK — Two league officials say NBA Commissioner David Stern makes less than baseball’s Bud Selig or the NFL’s Roger Goodell, leaving his salary far below the more than $20 million that’s been reported. Some reports had Stern’s salary at $23 million, angering locked-out players being asked to accept pay cuts in a new collective bargaining agreement. One of the officials told The Associated Press on Thursday that Stern’s salary is set by the advisory/finance committee, which consists of 11 owners. The people were granted anonymity because the NBA does not release individual salaries. Selig makes more than $18 million annually. Goodell receives about $10 million in salary, bonus and incentives. The officials confirmed an ESPN.com report that Stern has declined to accept a pay check during the work stoppage, as he said he would when asked during the All-Star break about Goodell’s plan to lower his salary to $1 during the NFL’s lockout.

Read the full article →

Greece’s Dismal Economy Leaves Some Feeling They’ve Lost ‘Quality As A People’

July 29, 2011

A sovereign debt crisis has left Greece with riots and the worst credit rating in the world. And day-to-day life outside the capital can be equally dismal. Some Greeks living near the ruins of Athens’ ancient rival city Sparta feel they are paying the price for the choices made by politicians in the capital, BBC World reports. Small business owners across multiple industries say they are barely surviving even though the government’s latest round of austerity measures has yet to take effect. From pastry chefs to orange farmers to luxury furniture salesman, times are tough and the outlook does not look good — that’s if you’re lucky enough to even have a job with unemployment ratings rising 40 percent in March. And maybe worse, the joblessness casts a pessimistic malaise even over the most qualified of Greek citizens. “You lose your quality as a people, as a citizen,” one business school graduate who was forced to move back in with his parents after losing his job in Athens told BBC World. “Because you can’t offer [anything] in the community, you can’t offer [anything] for yourself, for your family.”

Read the full article →

Which Airlines Are Cashing In & Who’s Spreading The Love With The FAA Shutdown

July 24, 2011

In case you didn’t know, the FAA was forced to partially shutdown at midnight on Friday after Congress failed to resolve a dispute over the agency’s funding. It’s been estimated that the shutdown will cost the government $200 million per week in lost revenue from airline ticket taxes. CBS News reports that the uncollected tax will come out to roughly $61 per domestic ticket.

Read the full article →

NFL Owners Vote In Favor Of Tentative Deal To End Lockout

July 22, 2011

COLLEGE PARK, Ga. (Associated Press) — NFL owners voted overwhelmingly in favor of a tentative 10-year agreement to end the lockout, pending player approval. Thursday’s vote was 31-0, with the Oakland Raiders abstaining from the ratification, which came after a full day of meetings at an Atlanta-area hotel. While owners pored over the terms, Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke on the phone several times with NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith, including filling him in on the results of the vote before it was announced. “Hopefully, we can all work quickly, expeditiously, to get this agreement done,” Commissioner Roger Goodell said. “It is time to get back to football. That’s what everybody here wants to do.” Players still had to sign off on the deal — and they must re-establish their union, the NFL said. Players didn’t vote on a full pact Wednesday because there were unresolved issues. They planned to have a conference call later Thursday. However, Smith wrote in an email to the 32 player representatives shortly after the owners’ decision: “Issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open; other issues, such as workers’ compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms, remain unresolved. There is no agreement between the NFL and the Players at this time. I look forward to our call tonight.” The four-month lockout is the NFL’s first work stoppage since 1987. The first game on the preseason schedule — the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame game between Chicago and St. Louis — was canceled Thursday. “The time was just too tight,” Goodell said. “Unfortunately, we’re not going to be able to play the game this year.” Team facilities will open Saturday, and the new league year will begin Wednesday, he said — assuming the players approve the agreement, too. The owners locked out players on March 12. During that time, teams weren’t allowed to communicate with current NFL players; players — including those drafted in April — could not be signed; and teams did not pay for players’ health insurance. The basic framework for the league’s new economic model — including how to split more than $9 billion in annual revenues — was set up during negotiations last week. But final issues involved how to set aside three pending court cases, including the antitrust lawsuit filed against the NFL in federal court in Minnesota by Tom Brady and nine other players. NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said the owners’ understanding is that that court case will be dismissed. One thing the owners originally sought and won’t get, at least right away, is expanding the regular season from 16 games to 18. That won’t change before 2013, and the players must agree to a switch.

Read the full article →

What Will Happen To Markets If The U.S. Defaults?

July 17, 2011

NEW YORK — Time is running out for Washington to raise the country’s borrowing limit and avoid a default. Wall Street isn’t panicking yet. But if the unthinkable happens, a default could strike financial markets like an earthquake. “If we just get higher longer-term interest rates, we’d be lucky,” said John Briggs, Treasury strategist at the Royal Bank of Scotland. What might markets look like after a default? The tremors from even a short-lived default could take unpredictable paths. Stocks, bonds and the dollar would likely plummet in the immediate aftermath. There’s wide agreement among economists that a default would drive up borrowing costs for everybody. U.S. Treasury yields act like a floor for other lending rates, so raising them makes it more expensive for Americans to take out mortgages, for corporations to finance new spending and for local governments to borrow. But analysts say predicting exactly how a default would play out in stocks, bonds and currency in the hours and days following the Aug. 2. debt ceiling deadline is practically impossible. “If I were to draw a flow chart, it becomes so complex it’s impossible to analyze the impact of a default,” said Guy LaBas, chief fixed income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott. When pressed, investors say the immediate aftermath could look like the financial crisis in September 2008. Stocks would lead the way down. In the month following Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy, for instance, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index lost 28 percent. Gold may offer some refuge. Fear has driven traders into precious metals in droves in recent years, but gold is at a record $1,594 an ounce, without taking inflation into account. But two places where traders usually hide — the dollar and U.S. Treasurys — are likely to sink as the world’s investors flee the U.S. There would be few places to hide. A deeper fear is that a default could freeze the short-term lending markets that keep money moving throughout the global financial system. Treasurys and other government-backed debt are widely as used collateral for loans in these markets. A default and a downgrade of U.S. debt by rating agencies would shake the trust in that collateral, Briggs said. Lenders could respond by demanding borrowers to post more collateral, forcing them to sell other investments to meet those demands. A similar selling cycle spread turmoil across markets when Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. But the fallout from a U.S. default could be much worse. “I don’t even want to think of the ripple effects,” Briggs said. Indeed, most analysts agree that if the world’s largest economy reneges on its debts, the consequences would be catastrophic. That’s why so far they’ve trusted Congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama to reach a deal. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke certainly drew a dire picture in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday. He said a default would be a “calamitous outcome” and “create a severe financial shock.” The global financial system relies on Treasurys, backed by the world’s largest economy and long considered one of the world’s safest bets. “A default on those securities would throw the financial system potentially into chaos,” Bernanke said. The widespread selloff that might trigger could have one benefit, Briggs and others say. Panic-selling might force Washington to quickly agree to raise the debt limit. Think back to September 2008 for some historical perspective. After the House of Representatives voted down the bailout bill to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program on Sept. 29, the Dow Jones industrial average nosedived 777 points. Congress made an about face and four days later passed the TARP bill. President George W. Bush quickly signed it into law. “We’re setting up for a TARP-like moment,” said Neil Dutta, U.S. economist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. “The politicians don’t come to a resolution, but the market forces a resolution.” Traders are still banking on a deal to increase the borrowing limit before the Aug. 2 deadline. That’s one reason stocks and bond yields have remained relatively stable thus far, even after Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s warned they may soon take away the country’s top credit rating. “What would shock is if Washington failed to beat the deadline,” said Tony Crescenzi, market strategist at Pimco. Crescenzi and other investors believe the negotiations could drag on until the last minute. Markets would likely greet a deal with a “relief rally,” analysts say. The effect would be the reverse of a default: Stocks, corporate bonds and the dollar all jump. “The market will react well to it,” said David Kelly, chief market strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds. Kelly said a deal would lift the uncertainty hanging over investors, especially those too worried to buy stocks now. After President Bush signed the TARP into law in 2008, for instance, the Dow made large jumps, adding as many as 946 points in a week. When Washington finally agrees to raise the debt ceiling, Treasurys could drop because investors would be more willing to take risks in other investments, Kelly said. That’s how they normally trade: Good economic news pushes Treasury prices down and yields up. The relief may not last long. If the agreement leads to deep spending cuts, Wall Street economists say it will likely drag down economic growth. Similarly, in late 2008, the wild gains evaporated as the financial crisis took hold. The S&P bottomed out in March 2009. Federal spending makes up 8 percent of gross domestic product, a broad measure of the economy. Goldman Sachs economists estimate that a deal to cut $2 trillion in spending could take 0.8 percentage points off economic growth next year. The bank already predicts modest real GDP growth of 3.1 percent in 2012. Knock off a quarter of that and the economy won’t look much better than it does now.

Read the full article →

Alan B. Krueger: Doubt and Confidence on Hitting the Debt Ceiling

July 17, 2011

Alan Krueger, who served as Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy and Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of the Treasury 2009-2010, was interviewed by Yu Chen for this post on the debt limit. Yu Chen (YC): Do you think the debt ceiling will get raised? Alan Krueger (AK): There are some things like raising the debt ceiling that simply have to be done. For instance, the only thing that prompted the administration to put health care reform briefly on hold was working with Congress to raise the debt ceiling at the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010. This was one thing that I had the opportunity to work on that didn’t get much attention at the time — or since. I remember Secretary Timothy Geithner said at one point, “The American people don’t realize that one of our significant achievements was raising the debt ceiling without incident.” We are approaching the debt ceiling again. The debt ceiling is a funny animal. Congress tells Treasury to spend money on various programs, and it authorizes the collection of a certain amount of tax revenue, expecting Treasury to borrow to make up for any shortfall of revenues over spending. Yet, it also sets a limit on how much debt the government can accumulate. The Treasury isn’t borrowing money because it wants to; it is borrowing because Congress chose to spend more money than it chose to collect. If Congress wants to limit the debt, it should vote to cut spending and/or raise revenues — and it can do that independently of voting to raise the debt ceiling. So, in my view, the debt ceiling is an unnecessary constraint that can cause severe damage to the financial reputation of the United States and health of the world economy if it is not raised in an orderly way that is congruent with past spending and taxing decisions. I’m 90% confident that, despite all the attendant drama, the debt ceiling will go up without incident. And I suspect the debt ceiling might go up in steps rather than all at once, as it did last time. But I do think that Congress will do the right thing – the absolutely necessary thing — and avoid a fiscal meltdown by raising the debt ceiling. Of course, there may be some strings attached. Some Congressmen have said things like, “We don’t believe that August is the real deadline. The Treasury Department will have some opportunity to juggle the books and move things around.” YC: But the Treasury doesn’t play games with the debt ceiling. If it came to it — and I very much hope this is never tested — I think Treasury will pull out all stops to avoid defaulting on the debt. It could, for example, repo or sell the government’s gold supply or other assets to raise money to service the debt for a time. However, you reach a point where you’re legally required to default on some obligation, whether it’s an obligation to pay interest on Treasury bills, to pay the military or to pay social security benefits. If the debt ceiling is not raised, Treasury will soon need to default on some obligation and radically reduce spending. Given the amount of borrowing the government is doing, failing to raise the debt ceiling would require a widespread reduction in spending, and if we reach that point, I think it’s going to cause severe trauma for the economy — not just now, but for years to come. I think a default on our obligations would raise our borrowing costs and saddle the next generation with even more debt and a heavier burden as a result. YC: How did you play a role? AK: The Treasury Secretary is required to notify Congress 90 days in advance of when he expects to hit the debt ceiling. They used to always send up a letter that said, “We’re going to hit it on such and such day, plus or minus one week.” I asked, “Where did the plus or minus one week come from?” Treasury has an office that makes projections of how much the government will need to borrow in the future, called the Office of Debt Projections, which is staffed by career employees. They do the same thing for every administration — they project how much money the government is expected to borrow each day for months into the future. We’re a lot less certain about how much we will need to borrow now than we were three or four years ago, because the deficit has increased so much. Our borrowing needs are determined by many factors that are harder and harder to forecast: interest rates vary, tax revenues vary and spending rates vary from day to day. All of these factors affect borrowing needs. When a specific date for hitting the debt ceiling was reported at one of our meetings with an air of certainty in the fall of 2009, Tim Geithner asked, “How do you know for sure? Can’t you calculate some type of a range? What’s that thing you guys call it; you know, that interval?” I realized he was referring to a confidence interval. I’m not sure anyone else in the Department besides me remembered what a confidence interval was. This is something that I have taught in statistics classes, so I was pleased to put on my professorial hat. I explained what a confidence interval was and gave an example — a range calculated in such a way that 95% of the time it would contain the true date we were going to hit the debt ceiling. I took it upon myself, with my staff, to try to calculate some measure of uncertainty for when we were going to hit the debt ceiling. I’m really proud of my staff, because it wasn’t so easy to do. When we got the historical projections — the historical data on what actually happened and past projections of borrowing needs — we looked at how much error there was and how big the mistakes were to get some idea of the uncertainty that would accompany projections going forward. This calculation was difficult because spending and tax revenue tend to be very lumpy from day to day; some days a lot of money comes in and some days a lot of money goes out. Now, when the Secretary warns Congress about the debt ceiling, he includes a 99% confidence interval, and when we talked to Congress about this issue, we would bring a chart showing a range of uncertainty around the government’s projected borrowing needs. I think this is extremely helpful. Indeed, I once remarked that I was responsible for bringing the Treasury Department into the 20th century when it comes to statistics… I was also relieved that our confidence interval contained the true date that we would have hit the debt ceiling had Congress not raised the debt limit. A shrewd Congressman once called the Department and said, “We’re going to raise the debt ceiling in steps. We haven’t gotten it all worked out, but we’re going to give you enough money to get by for X weeks, and it’d be very convenient if we could hit the next ceiling just before the next recess.” (Congress often uses an upcoming recess to force it to act.) He then asked, “How much money do we need to make it to such and such holiday?” When the question reached me, my response was that, I can tell you the date plus or minus two weeks; I can’t tell you a specific time. It’s kind of folly to think that you can predict with that much certainty. Sometimes an understanding of statistics doesn’t intersect well with the way politicians think about issues, but I think confidence intervals are a useful addition for managing the nation’s borrowing needs. YC: Does the Treasury have any wiggle room once the debt ceiling is reached? AK: There is some wiggle room, but that is mostly taken into account in the forecasts. Treasury calls it “extraordinary measures” — things like withdrawing money that the Treasury has deposited at the Federal Reserve or delaying deposits to federal workers’ retirement accounts. The problem with taking the extraordinary measures is that more and more, they put the government at risk (e.g., the money deposited at the Fed gives the Fed some room to maneuver), or diminish the effectiveness of government programs. I already mentioned that there may be some new extraordinary measures that go beyond the previous canon that are not included in the forecast, such as repoing or selling assets, that can make it possible to pay for our bills a little while longer. Eventually, the government runs out of extraordinary measures. Unless there are some tricks that I’m not aware of, if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2nd, the government will soon need to make some painful decisions that would likely irreversibly harm the country’s fiscal reputation and ability to borrow cheaply in capital markets, and that could throw the world economy back into a deep recession or a second Great Depression.

Read the full article →

Taking A ‘Young & Reckless’ Approach To Business

July 17, 2011

Chris “Drama” Pfaff has spent his entire adult life under the watchful eye of an MTV camera. In 2007, fresh out of high school, he moved from the suburbs of Ohio to the Hollywood Hills, to become the assistant to his older cousin — professional skateboarder and soon-to-become reality star Rob Dyrdek. For three very successful seasons, Pfaff thanklessly washed clothes and looked after a miniature horse on Rob & Big, a buddy comedy chronicling the travails of Dyrdek and his 6-foot-6, 415-pound bodyguard, Christopher “Big Black” Boykin. While Pfaff served as the picked-on little brother, the experience served as an unlikely entrepreneurial apprenticeship.

Read the full article →

Republicans Target House Dem For His Work On Financial Reform

July 15, 2011

It’s a game, indeed, that Miller’s been very good at for about 30 years as a member of the state Legislature and, since he was elected in 2002, of Congress. But for Miller, the game may be ending, called on account of a Republican redistricting plan that seeks to yank most of Miller’s District 13 out from under him and force him to run, in the 2012 elections, where he cannot win. In fact, Miller says Republicans have targeted him for extinction precisely because he is on the rise as a progressive, and thus a threatening force in Washington, especially on critical banking and Wall Street reform issues

Read the full article →

Corporation Culture Wars

July 15, 2011

By Nicole Neroulias Religion News Service (RNS) When you buy a pair of shoes, a spicy chicken sandwich, or a gym membership, does that mean you endorse everything about the company — including the CEO’s religious beliefs? It’s a question that has long plagued socially conscious consumers, but sites like Change.org now mobilize grassroots campaigns against companies like Curves fitness centers, whose CEO donates millions to anti-abortion groups, and Chick-fil-A, a fast-food chain that supports faith-based groups opposed to same-sex relationships. While protests haven’t stopped those corporate leaders from supporting conservative Christian agendas, the head of TOMS shoes has felt compelled to apologize for agreeing to a June 30 interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly. Blake Mycoskie, 34, an evangelical Christian, founded TOMS in 2006, promising every pair would be made with fair labor and would provide a second pair for a needy child. The for-profit California-based company, which has given away more than a million pairs of shoes, is popular on the West Coast, particularly with young adults attracted to no-frills fashions and social justice activities. After gay-rights and feminist groups criticized Mycoskie and his customers threatened a boycott, the CEO apologized on Saturday (July 9). “Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event,” he wrote on his Start Something That Matters blog. Comments on his blog and Facebook page doubted that Mycoskie was ignorant of Focus’ activism against homosexuality, especially since some had warned him when the event was first advertised. TOMS could opt to block the radio broadcast of the interview, but as of Wednesday, Focus still hopes to air the 45-minute program this fall, reaching up to 2.8 million listeners. “We approached TOMS because Blake attracts a certain audience and because his story is inspirational,” said Gary Schneeberger, a Focus spokesman. “The idea that out of his faith, as a Christian, he created this company, we thought this was inspiring and was something our listeners would like to hear.” Mycoskie has credited faith as inspiring his business, but the TOMS website proclaims the company is nonpolitical and nonreligious. “While we are happy to work with organizations from all religious and political backgrounds, we prohibit the giving of our shoes from being associated with any religious or political ideology,” the website states. In its application materials, the company requires potential partners to agree they won’t try to convert aid recipients or require them to participate in any kind of religious activity to receive shoes. Companies and their leaders are free to support religious or political causes, but Chris MacDonald, a business ethicist affiliated with Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics, said consumers should take such actions into account. “If you have a sense that your money is somehow, even indirectly, contributing to a cause that you find morally problematic, then it seems somewhere between reasonable and obligatory for you to vote with your dollars,” he said. “Your individual purchasing decision isn’t doing a lot to further the cause of the company’s CEO — maybe just a few pennies — but there’s also symbolic value, and you’re responsible for that.” In the past, consumer complaints over gay issues were more likely to come from conservative Christian groups, with organizations like the American Family Association objecting to the corporate policies of companies like Walgreens, Wal-Mart and Proctor & Gamble. It’s one thing to put your money where your mouth is, but it’s not practical for consumers to avoid doing business with any companies whose policies or leaders support opposing religious or political beliefs, MacDonald said. “A lot of people like the idea of companies being socially involved in their community,” he said, “but if you want big companies to get involved in social issues, what makes you think they’re going to come down on your side?” Gay rights petitions have achieved limited success in the past year: Apple pulled apps for conservative groups like Exodus International and the Manhattan Declaration from its iTunes store, and Chick-fil-A’s president issued a statement that “while my family and I believe in the biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.” The quick, direct apology from TOMS is an anomaly, MacDonald said, speculating that the company’s small size and social responsibility mission made it vulnerable to criticism from its core audience. In comparison, left-wing protests against Whole Foods, whose CEO came out against health care reform two years ago, haven’t had a noticeable impact on the supermarket chain. Focus on the Family is “not unfamiliar with being protested,” but this is the first time that a business leader has felt compelled to publicly apologize and possibly withdraw from its program, Schneeberger said. “People have to make their buying decisions based on their own values and consciousness. That’s America,” he said. “(But) that is a little bit troubling and kind of chilling as we look ahead, because we have to wonder what people will say we’re not fit to do next, if we’re not fit to put shoes on the feet of impoverished children.”

Read the full article →

Karl Rove-Backed Group Goes After Five Democratic Senators

July 8, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican-leaning fundraising group with ties to GOP strategist Karl Rove has launched a new phase of its $20 million ad campaign attacking Democrats. Crossroads GPS is running television ads targeting five Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012. They are Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The group also is running ads on national cable TV outlets and in presidential battleground states including Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia criticizing President Barack Obama. It’s also targeting a handful of House districts. The ads will begin running Friday. Crossroads is spending about $7 million on the effort. Crossroads and an affiliated organization, American Crossroads, spent $38.6 million in 2010 against Democrats. WATCH:

Read the full article →

Debra Goldblatt-Sadowski: Email Etiquette

July 8, 2011

Email is a huge part of my day. It’s how I communicate with clients, vendors, project partners, media and almost every other person in my life. It’s such a huge part of our daily lives, yet it’s surprising how many people lack proper email etiquette skills. Here are some tips that I believe will make virtual communications a happier experience. Email 101: The first and most important lesson is to include an email signature in every email ; first and last name, professional title, company name, mailing address, office line, alternate phone number if applicable, email address and website. Don’t make us search through your last 20 emails to us just to find a phone number or mailing address. If it’s your personal email account, a first and last name and phone number will suffice. Most email addresses have people’s first names. So, if you’re writing to debra [at] companyname [dot] com, don’t begin your email with “Hi Barbara”. I’m not a huge fan of the “read receipt” option. Do you really need to know when I read your note? I’ll reply as soon as I can. Try not to overuse “reply all.” However, if I add somebody to a chain, I’d like you to keep them on it and not have to keep adding them on every reply. Careful when marking something “high priority” — you don’t want to end up like the boy who cried wolf. Only mark it urgent if it really is urgent. Capitalize and punctuate. It’s fairly simple to throw in a few periods, commas and question marks, and makes it easier to understand what you wrote. Please don’t include huge attachments that are unsolicited. That means anything over 2MB. If it is over 2MB, ask if it’s cool to send through. Easy. Don’t send me stupid, time-wasting forwards. I hate it and I can bet all of your friends and colleagues do, too. If you think you are sending a note of warning about spam, please check www.snopes.com . They will let you know if it is real or rumour. If it is a business related email, please don’t shorten words or use numbers for words. I understand you may be in a rush, but an email riddled with short forms can come across as a) confusing, b) cryptic, c) unprofessional, d) annoying and e) it’s not a text. you ≠ u are ≠ r for ≠ 4 to ≠ 2 great ≠ gr8 A quick note on RSVPs for professional events — identify yourself (especially if you’re writing from a personal account like Gmail or Hotmail). Most hosts (or PR companies, in our case) receive lots of other RSVPs, so including your info off the top definitely makes it simpler and faster to track. When replying or forwarding an email, keep the entire message thread. It’s more efficient to file one email in a chain instead of three or four. Plus, it saves time when you have to look back on something; you won’t have to look up several emails and piece together the entire conversation because all the info will be in one nice tidy chain. I like nice and tidy. Debra Goldblatt is the founder and president of rock-it promotions, a boutique public relations agency in Toronto, Canada. rock-it promotions creates national campaigns that build recognition and generate positive media coverage for lifestyle, fashion, health, beauty and film clients among many more. A version of this post first appeared on www.onthefourthfloor.com .

Read the full article →

WATCH: Man Reportedly Jailed For Cashing Legitimate Check

July 7, 2011

Last June, 28-year-old Ikenna Njoku of Auburn, Washington was reportedly imprisoned for four days after trying to cash a Chase check the bank itself had issued to him. Mr. Njoku, who at the time claims he had become a new homeowner, qualified for the first-time home buyer rebate on his tax return, for a total of $8,463.21 after overdraft fees, reports King 5 Seattle . When Chase mailed him the check, he says that he sought to cash it as quickly as possible. But when he arrived at the Chase bank, the banker allegedly thought the check, and his claim that he owned a home, were fraudulent. “I was embarrassed,” Njoku told King 5. “She asked me what I did for a living. Asked me where I got the check from, looked me up and down — like ‘you just bought a house in Auburn, really?’ She didn’t believe that.” According to Mr. Njoku, he left the bank and was told by customer service that he should come back the next morning. When he did, the bank had phoned the police, who subsequently arrested him for forgery. Njoku remained in jail for four days. When the bank realized it had made a mistake, they left a voicemail message with the detective handling the case, but unfortunately for Mr. Njoku, it was the detective’s day off. No further attempts were made by the bank to correct the error, the local police department confirmed to King 5. The check that had landed him in prison was reportedly seized as evidence and he lost his job for failing to show up while in prison. “They [Chase] haven’t even sent me a letter or apologized,” he said. “It’s been a year we’ve been trying to contact these guys.” He has since hired an attorney. Mr. Njoku is not the first individual who has been imprisoned for what has arguably been a bank’s mistake. In June of this year, KCAL 9 reported that Laguna Beach resident Stephen McDow had been arrested for spending $60,000 of a $110,000 tax refund that Citibank had mistakenly deposited in his account. Watch full King 5 report here:

Read the full article →

Rare Ronald McDonald Costume Reveals Spokes-Clown’s Origins

July 7, 2011

In a more innocent age, Ronald McDonald was the most benign of media icons: a cheerful clown whose floppy red wig and striped clothes presented an image of family fun. But in recent years, another view of the spokes-clown has emerged: To detractors, he’s a heartless corporate shill bent on promoting morbid obesity to young children at the expense of good health. Is it possible that Ronald McDonald is just a victim of his own success? Of doing a job so well that he helped McDonald’s become the largest restaurant chain in the world, with a profound effect on both American society and meat prices? Believe it or not, the search for the origin behind a mysterious Ronald McDonald costume by Elyse Luray of the popular PBS series “History Detectives” turned into an investigation on the clown’s impact on both pop culture and waistlines. Recently, Luray got a request from Randy Liebermann, a collector of McDonald’s memorabilia man in Reston, Va., who wanted to find out whether a very old Ronald McDonald costume he had purchased several years ago was in fact the first one used in a national commercial. The costume was found at a sale for unclaimed storage locker items and came complete, including shoes, makeup and a bright red wig. But it’s unclear where and when the outfit comes from. “Maybe it’s simply just a Halloween costume,” Luray told Liebermann. “The only reason I think maybe not is that the label says Max Weldy and I know for a fact that he was a Parisian costume maker.” The search came at a unique time for the iconic clown. This year marks the 45th anniversary of his national debut. But what should be a happy time for the ad icon who introduced “Happy Meals” is one of controversy. On one hand, some public health advocates think he should be retired, and, on the other, McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner has had to declare that Ronald is still an ambassador for the company, even though he is getting downplayed as the corporation’s marketing focuses less on kids and more on adults. Whether or not Ronald McDonald is at all responsible for America’s obesity epidemic is a matter of debate, but Luray says it’s an indisputable fact that the clown has had a big impact on pop culture. “Ronald McDonald is one of the two most successful advertising icons of all time,” she told AOL Weird News. “McDonald’s changed how we eat and advertise and merchandise.” The hamburger harlequin made his national debut during the 1966 Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade, but the character originated three years before that in Washington, D.C., according to hamburger historian Andrew F. Smith. “McDonald’s was originally a local San Bernardino outfit with Maurice McDonald and Richard McDonald,” Smith told Luray. “When they expanded to about 10 different outlets, they made a contract with Ray Kroc, who lived in Chicago, to franchise nationally.” By the mid-1960s, the chain was cooking even faster than the burgers, adding about 100 new franchises annually. Although the chain worked on streamlining food preparation, menus and architecture on a national level, the brand didn’t yet boast the synergy in marketing and advertising that it’s famous for today. “That standardization was something that was very important to McDonald’s,” Smith said. “But they didn’t have standards on advertising, so each local franchise was responsible for its own advertising.” Around 1963, a McDonald’s in Washington, D.C., decided to boost business by sponsoring “Bozo’s Circus,” a children’s show featuring future “Today Show” weatherman Willard Scott. It was very successful, increasing sales by 30 percent fairly quickly. As part of the show, Scott created a new character, Ronald McDonald, that looked much different than the famed clown seen today. This Ronald had a food tray for a hat and a paper cup for his nose, but Smith says corporation executives were able to see the possibilities for something even more iconic. “Television in the 1950s and early 1960s really was a much more powerful media than it is today,” he said. “There were very few channels available in most communities, so, if you had a children’s program on, you had literally all the kids in a local community watching it.” Kroc recognized the possibilities of catering to families, especially because of something called “pester power,” which is when kids keep whining about something until parents give it to them. So he decided to promote McDonald’s to kids and families, Smith said. “The initial target were families in the suburbs,” he said. “Ray Kroc would fly over a community, look where the schools were, look where the new churches were being built and that’s where he wanted McDonald’s franchises.” It was a savvy maneuver since there were few food outlets in those suburbs. “Ray Kroc thought, ‘If I get all those children in here, they’ll eat a lot of hamburgers’ … And indeed they did.” The man who gets the honor for creating the Ronald McDonald we know today is Michael Polakovs, a circus performer who performed with Ringling Brothers under the name “Coco the Clown.” With the help of costume designer Max Weldy, Polakovs designed the outfit and makeup still in use today. He appeared in the first eight TV commercials featuring Ronald McDonald — including one that aired during the first Super Bowl in 1967. Polakovs died in 2009, but his widow, Hazel, said her late husband was always proud of the character. “Coco was always proud to be a part of this,” she said. “Anytime he was promoting Ringling and he got the chance he would promote Ronald McDonald together.” Thanks, in part, to Polakovs, Ronald McDonald’s first national campaign was a landmark from a culinary and pop culture standpoint. Not only was it the first national campaign for any fast food operation, it was the first time the industry recognized children as its real target market — and one it’s been catering to ever since. Though the clown has taken flak for marketing to children, Luray, the mother of two kids, 12 and 9, said Ronald McDonald has very little impact on her kids wanting to go to the restaurant. “It’s all about the toys,” she said. “Sometimes, we just go and get the toys and skip the food.” But Smith said that Ronald McDonald is the drop in the water that started an ocean of change. “It starts off with Ronald McDonald and the clown outfit,” he said. “It goes from there into Playlands and then the Happy Meal that comes on in the 1970s and then to tie-ins with movies and toys associated with those tie-ins.” As for the outfit that started Luray on his journey? Turns out that it wasn’t the first one on a national ad, but it does have significance for being one of the first costumes that was manufactured in bulk to send out to franchises around the country. As such, it has historical significance. But while Luray believes Ronald McDonald deserves his pop culture props, she doubts that he will ever have the popular acclaim he once had. “As a character, Ronald is too simple,” she said. “He doesn’t have the emotional impact to kids. He’s not a superhero. He’s just a clown. Plus, the Happy Meal tie-ins are what attracts the kid. He’s competing with, say, Green Lantern and he’s competing against his own food.” WATCH:

Read the full article →

Timothy Karr: Big Loss for Big Media and the FCC: Court Rejects Media Consolidation Push

July 7, 2011

It’s not every day that you can celebrate a win for the public over big media. But on Thursday a federal appeals court threw out an attempt by the FCC and industry titans to gut media ownership limits. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit threw out a 2007 FCC rule change that would have allowed a single company to own a daily newspaper and several broadcast stations in one local market. Such a change could have opened the floodgates to media mergers, leading to further layoffs in newsrooms while leeching diverse perspectives from local media. The court also upheld the FCC’s decision to retain its other local broadcast ownership restrictions, and instructed the agency to better consider how its rules affect broadcast ownership by people of color. Sweeping Victory for the Public Interest The decision is a sweeping victory for the public interest. The court rejected arguments made by broadcast and newspaper giants while exposing the FCC’s repeated failures to rein in runaway consolidation. “We won on almost every point,” said Andrew Schwartzman, Senior Vice President and Policy Director of Media Access Project, who argued before the court against the FCC’s rules. “This decision is a vindication of the public’s right to have a diverse media environment… Now that the Court has directed the FCC to make sure the public is not ignored, we can look forward to having a right to meaningful participation as the FCC looks at these questions again.” “The court wisely concluded that competition in the media – not more concentration – will provide Americans with the local news and information they need and want,” said Corie Wright, Free Press policy counsel, who also argued the case on behalf of a coalition of public advocacy groups. The case, Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , is the second time the Third Circuit jettisoned FCC attempts to relax its media ownership rules. The first was in 2004, when the same panel of judges struck down then-Chairman Michael Powell’s attempts to gut media ownership limits. “I was there when Andrew Schwartzman and his colleagues put together their case for the people,” said Hannah Sassaman, a longtime organizer at the Prometheus Radio Project who is now working with the New America Foundation. “The court threw out the FCC’s rules because these incredible lawyers and the millions of people they represented proved that letting one company own too much media hurts our communities. Big Media Lobby Rebuked Large media corporations have repeatedly lobbied the FCC to lift its 35-year-old ban on “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership”. Had they been successful — and these rules gone into effect — a single company could have owned the main daily newspaper, eight radio stations, three television stations and a major cable provider in the same town. The court decision vacated the FCC’s plan to relax the ban on such common ownership, finding that the Commission’s rule-making procedures were highly irregular and failed to give the public adequate notice and opportunity to weigh in. The court also determined that record evidence supports the FCC’s decision not to relax any of the other media ownership rules. “Today the court confirmed that the FCC’s media ownership rules are not only constitutional but necessary to preserve competition, as well as to promote diverse sources of news and information for the American people,” said Wright. The FCC’s Diversity Problem The court also blasted the FCC for repeated failures to consider the impact of media consolidation on broadcast license ownership by people of color. Free Press research from 2007 exposed the FCC’s failure to foster minority ownership of radio and television stations: racial or ethnic minorities own just 7.7 percent of all full-power commercial broadcast radio stations and just 3.26 percent of all TV stations, though they account for 33 percent of the U.S. population. The court’s findings come as the FCC embarks on yet another review of media ownership limits this summer. And while the court upheld the need for curbs, industry groups are still pushing the FCC to eliminate them, just as public interest groups are organizing against new and covert forms of media consolidation. Now the FCC “cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence that existing media consolidation levels adversely impact the amount and quality of news from diverse sources,” Wright said.

Read the full article →

Men Charged With Transporting Prostitutes To Vermont Farms

June 30, 2011

BRATTLEBORO, Vt – Federal prosecutors have charged two men with transporting several Hispanic women from New York to Vermont to have sex with farm workers. Alejandro Enrique Young-Hernandez, 53, of Hyde Park, Vermont, appeared Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Burlington on a conspiracy charge of intent to have the women, most in their early to mid-twenties, engage in prostitution at various farms, Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Ross said on Thursday. According to the criminal complaint, Young-Hernandez, also known as Alex Young, met a Mexican man in October named Jose Tomas Flores-Rocha, also 53, who prosecutors said was in the country unlawfully. Prosecutors alleged that the men began working together to arrange so-called “tricks” for Vermont farm workers at $60 per sexual act, with Flores-Rocha bringing the handful of women from New York for that purpose. Flores-Rocha was arrested near a farm in Vermont on March 16 while traveling with a female illegal alien from Mexico who was working as a prostitute. Prosecutors said he also had a ledger with clients’ and prostitutes’ names, farm addresses, and dates and times of services rendered. Flores-Rocha pleaded guilty on June 14 to transporting the Mexican woman for prostitution and as part of a plea, admitted to having driven more than five women to Vermont for that purpose. He agreed to serve 18 months in jail, with his sentencing set for October 18. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Conroy set Young-Hernandez next court appearance for July 18. If convicted, Young-Hernandez faces up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000. (Reporting by Zach Howard; Editing by Chris Michaud and Greg McCune) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Union Hyatt Regency Workers Hold One-Day Strike

June 20, 2011

Union workers at Chicago’s Hyatt Regency launched a one-day strike Monday at the 151 E. Wacker Drive location as they called for better working conditions and a better sense of job security. As the Chicago Sun-Times reported, the strike began at 4 a.m. and was currently scheduled to continue until 8 p.m. It had not caused any service interruptions, though the hotel’s union represents some 600 housekeepers, bell staff, restaurant staff and others. Annemarie Strassel, a spokeswoman for Unite Here Local 1, which represents a total of some 1,800 Hyatt hotel employees in the Chicago area, told the Sun-Times the strikers current biggest concerns are the housekeepers’ working conditions and the hotel’s usage of subcontracting. The workers’ contract expired just short of two years ago and in that time, the union has held other demonstrations against the hotel chain, including a September 2010 one-day strike at the O’Hare hotel and a May 2010 walkout. The Hyatt has, in response, called the strike a “production” intended to increase the union’s membership and dues , according to NBC Chicago . The hotel chain has, according to a spokesperson, proposed to match the benefit and pay package the union had agreed to with other similar hotels in the area. Nevertheless one protester who has worked at the Hyatt for just under three decades still said he and his fellow picketers remain “sick and tired of all the disrespect we’re getting from the Hyatt hotels.” “Hyatt is one of the most abusive hotels in their treatment of housekeepers and has the worst record on subcontracting,” added Henry Tamarin, Local 1′s president in a news release . “They refuse to budge on these important issues, and now workers have hit a boiling point.” Last Tuesday, several thousand protesters showed up to a rally protesting bank bailouts and tax cuts for the wealthy in a rally sponsored by Stand Up! Chicago at the same location. The Hyatt Regency was host to the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce’s annual Chicago Executive Summit. Twenty-four individuals were arrested during that protest while, at press time, no arrests have been reported from the Unite Here Local 1 strike. Unionized Hyatt hotel workers have recently waged similar demonstrations in other parts of the country, most notably picketers at seventeen separate hotels who called for a boycott of the chain in a coordinated effort last Friday.

Read the full article →

The Most Profitable Ad Space On The Web?

June 20, 2011

By Alexei Oreskovic SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Facebook’s U.S. advertising revenue will total roughly $2.2 billion in 2011, displacing Yahoo Inc to collect the biggest slice of online display advertising dollars, according to a new study. Facebook’s U.S. advertising revenue will give it a 17.7 percent share of the market for graphical display ads that appear on websites, according to a report released on Monday by research firm eMarketer. Last year Facebook had 12.2 percent share of the U.S. market. The figures underscore the growing clout of Facebook, the world’s No.1 Internet social network. It has seen its valuation soar to roughly $80 billion in recent transactions for its shares on the private markets and some investors anticipate it could have an initial public offering next year. While Facebook has grabbed the top ranking, eMarketer analyst David Hallerman said the overall market for display ads, which include banner ads, video ads and Web page sponsorships, is growing robustly enough that it is benefiting numerous companies. “It’s not a zero sum game,” said Hallerman, noting that the display advertising market is experiencing rapid growth as both big international brands and small, local businesses increasingly turn to the Web to reach consumers. Internet companies such as Yahoo, Google Inc and Microsoft Corp are competing for those advertising budgets, while new players such as online coupon company Groupon are offering marketers alternatives to traditional online display ads. Web portal Yahoo will grow its online display business in the U.S. by 13.6 percent this year, eMarketer said. But that will lag the overall U.S. display market’s growth rate of 24.5 percent. Google’s revenue from U.S. display ads will total $1.15 billion in 2011, up 34.4 percent year-over-year. eMarketer’s report looks at companies’ net revenue, which does not include money the companies share with Web publisher partners. Google, which generates the vast majority of its revenue from small, often text-only ads that appear alongside its search results, is stepping up efforts to grow its display advertising business. Last week the company announced the acquisition of AdMeld, which makes it easier for Web publishers to sell display ads on their sites. In 2012, eMarketer projected that Yahoo and Google will be neck-and-neck as the No.2 and No.3 players in the U.S. display market, with the companies having 12.5 percent share and 12.3 percent, respectively. (Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic; Editing by Bernard Orr) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Tang Sales Double In 4 Years

June 20, 2011

Tang sales have almost doubled in the past four years . The powdered drink now grosses about $1 billion annually. Despite Tang’s association with astronauts , much of the brand’s recent success can be attributed to placing the drink in emerging markets such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines and the Middle East. In order to stay relevant in these markets, Tang has expanded beyond its well-known orange flavor and now comes in much more exotic flavors such as tamarind, soursop, horchata, ponkan (a citrus fruit) and lemon pepper. Last year, Tang sold the equivalent of 20 billion drink servings . But, to put that in perspective, Coke sells that much in under a month.

Read the full article →

NFL Owners Ask Federal Court To Dismiss Players’ Antitrust Lawsuit

June 7, 2011

MINNEAPOLIS — As the labor battle between NFL owners and players moved from the bargaining table to the courtroom, judges at each stop have urged both sides to reach an agreement before they have to issue significant rulings. The latest nudge in that direction came on Monday from U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who scheduled a hearing on the owners’ motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit from a group of players for Sept. 12. Coincidentally or not, Sept. 12 is four days after the regular season is set to open in Green Bay, and one day after the first Sunday of games for the 2011 season. Shortly after the owners filed their motion to dismiss on Monday, Nelson announced when she would hear arguments on the motion. The timing is significant, given that the Packers are scheduled to host the New Orleans Saints on Sept. 8, and the NFL has big plans for the first Sunday of action to commemorate the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Both sides hope that hearing never has to happen. The NFL and its players held settlement discussions in Chicago last week, but there is no sign a new collective bargaining agreement is imminent. A group of players including superstar quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees filed the antitrust lawsuit against the owners, alleging their lockout of the players is illegal. Nelson initially ruled in favor of the players in April, requiring the league to lift the lockout and let the players get back to work. That ruling has been appealed to the 8th Circuit in St. Louis, where a three-judge panel heard arguments on Friday and is considering the matter. The 8th Circuit put Nelson’s ruling on hold while it considers the appeal, though it is unclear when they will issue a ruling. In the meantime, the judges urged both sides to get back to the bargaining table and hammer out a deal. Judge Kermit Bye told attorneys on Friday that if no deal is done before the panel comes to a conclusion, they will likely offer up a decision that will be “probably something both sides aren’t going to like.” The owners argue, among other things, that Nelson did not have the jurisdiction to lift the lockout while the National Labor Relations Board is considering an unfair labor charge brought by the league against the players. The NLRB’s regional office in New York forwarded a preliminary report to the national board in Washington, but a spokeswoman said Monday it “doesn’t mean a decision is around the corner.” The two sides are engaged in a sometimes bitter dispute over how to divide $9 billion in revenue, a fight that has already caused some minicamps and offseason programs to be lost, free agency and trades to be delayed and resulted in hundreds of employees for teams across the league having their paychecks cut. The start of training camp is less than two months away, and teams are already making contingency plans if the lockout drags on. The Minnesota Vikings plan to have a date set this week that, if the lockout continued to that point, would force them to cancel training camp in Mankato. The owners are required to file a full brief supporting their motion by Aug. 1.

Read the full article →

Video: Roger Martin Says Stock-Based Compensation Doesn’t Work: Video

May 20, 2011

May 20 (Bloomberg) — Roger Martin, dean of the University Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, discusses his book “Fixing The Game: Bubbles, Crashes, and What Capitalism Can Learn From the NFL.” Martin talks with Erik Schatzer on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Stuart Diamond: Personal Foul for the NFL

May 16, 2011

The owners and the players in the National Football League dispute are just $250 million apart in a $9 billion seasonal purse. But they have already lost more than that in TV revenues, lawyers’ fees and other costs in their 2-1/2 month fight with each other. So why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces? The answer is they are too emotional, too ego-driven, too personal and not focused on their goals. As a result, everyone suffers: the public, the fans, the communities, and the principals themselves. The NFL debacle is another example in a world of failed negotiations: whether it’s health care, Libya or a dispute with the local merchant. Most people have in their minds a conflict model, which gets only 25 percent as much for the parties as collaboration. The parties need to understand that a business negotiation is not like a football game, where you try to break the other party. My book, Getting More , describes how to do it better and differently. The NFL could benefit from this immediately. Here are 10 ideas: 1. Separate Negotiation Track. Even if the parties litigate, they can be negotiating separately. There is no risk: settlement discussions are not admissible in court. This would increase the chance that they might agree on something. 2. Other Negotiators. The existing principals are too emotional to negotiate. How do I know that? Because they are acting against their own interests. That’s what people do when they’re emotional. So other negotiators are needed: either third parties such as mediators, or retired players, hall of famers, commentators or others that each side trusts. This process would likely produce better, and workable, ideas. 3. Keep Season While Negotiating. There is no reason to penalize fans and the public for the NFL owners-players flap. They should agree on the non-disputed portion — more than 95 percent of the revenues — and hold the season while negotiating or even litigating over the rest. Not holding the season shows a cynical, or at least non-caring, attitude toward the sport. Commentators should castigate players and owners for this. 4. Additional Revenue Sources. If the parties collaborated with each other, chances are good they could come up with additional revenue sources to close the financial gap in the negotiation. An additional game, an additional ad per game, a lottery of some sort, better marketing of logo material, a ride at a theme park: there must be thousands of ideas. It just takes a “can-do” attitude. Have a contest among fans to think up new sources of revenue. 5. Lunch! It will be impossible for the two sides to have a good long-term deal unless they trust each other. And they can’t trust each other unless they have a relationship. Owners and players’ reps need to get to know each other better as people. This means lunch, even watching football tapes together. Family outings. Demonizing each other in the heat of battle, or fighting for leverage, will not produce an effective long-term deal. Effective negotiations are mostly about the people, not the facts or the substance. 6. Communities. Local communities around the U.S. have provided $8 billion to the NFL. The communities should say that the tax breaks were in exchange for a season every year. If there is no season, there should be no tax breaks. Also, any future tax breaks should have stiff penalties for disruption of football, and clauses barring lock outs or strikes. It’s time for the public to step up. Also, communities should get involved in resolving the current dispute. Their involvement should be mandatory for future disputes. 7. Incremental. The NFL players’ association has rejected an offer by the NFL owners to provide summary financial information about the league. The players said they wanted to see detailed information on each team. This rejection shows a lack of negotiation skill. Effective negotiators are incremental. The players should have accepted the summaries, examined them and then made further requests if necessary. Now, the players have nothing. 8. Intangibles. The average career for an NFL player is only 3-1/2 years. As such, there are many intangibles that could be put into the mix, including better pensions, advice for long-term careers, financial advice, etc. If the NFL owners thought about the players more — or if the players thought about intangibles more — they could get off a debate just about money and add more value to the mix. 9. Standards. Trying to get leverage or power over the other party, either in court or through other moves, is unstable. Power keeps changing hands and solutions take longer, if they are ever reached. The lock-out was followed by the players dissolving the union. Court battles have seesawed. Better to use criteria developed by experts as fair. There are plenty of accountants and financial experts with experience on what profit splits or revenue sharing is fair in enterprises such as this. Indexing and other criteria can handle changes in expenses or revenues. This is a better system than continual haggling. 10. Alternative Stadiums or Players. If either side is extreme, that is, won’t negotiate, the other side could pursue an alternative season. The players could try to play at college, baseball or other stadiums and strike their own media deals. The owners could use other players. These are extreme measures. However, the parties owe a season to the fans and public. If one side won’t play ball, the other should try to. The underlying need overall is a better attitude. The two sides should stop, take a deep breath, and remind themselves that they love the game of football. This common feeling could be a basis for the players and owners to treat each other better. They could then solve their problems more quickly and easily.

Read the full article →

Roger Martin: Fixing the Game: What Capitalism Can Learn from the NFL

May 2, 2011

The NFL is, far and away, the most successful sports league in America. Regular-season NFL games regularly garner higher ratings than the final round of golf’s Masters, the Kentucky Derby, the Daytona 500, baseball’s all-star game, the most watched National Basketball Association final game, and college basketball’s Final Four title game. The 2010 Super Bowl was the most-watched television event in history, with more than 106 million American viewers. According to Forbes , of the twenty-five sports teams worth more than $1 billion, nineteen are from the NFL. No sport comes close to the NFL’s economic power. The NFL, like the business world, has two associated but distinct markets at play — the real market and the expectations market. In the NFL, the real market operates when teams take to the field on Sunday and play a game for sixty minutes, making real runs, passes, blocks, and tackles. Real touchdowns and real field goals are scored. There is a real winner and a real loser. Coaches and players are in full control of what happens in the real game (referees notwithstanding). Competition here is not unlike the competition between companies for customers. Then there is the NFL’s associated expectations market: gambling. Gamblers try to guess who will win a given game on a given Sunday and place bets based on that expectation. If the game were to be played between two equally matched opponents, we would expect that roughly half of the bettors would select one team to win and half would select the other–creating a perfectly efficient market with a balance of bets on each side. Of course, that rarely happens. One team is playing on the road, one team has a stronger quarterback or has a poor rush defense. So the Las Vegas bookmakers — the folks who run the expectations market — dynamically balance the bets on either side through the use of a point spread . If more people expect that the Dallas Cowboys will beat the Detroit Lions, the bookies will give points to the Lions. This means that, instead of betting on Detroit to win the game, you bet that Detroit will either win the game or, importantly, lose by less than the point spread. Imagine that the point spread is Dallas by 4.5 points. If you wager on Dallas to win, Dallas would need to win by 5 or more points for the bet to pay off. If you bet on Detroit, the Lions would need to win or lose by 4 or fewer points for the bet to pay off. From the time betting opens until kick-off, the point spread moves according to the bets placed, settling to a point of equilibrium where roughly half the money is bet on Detroit and half on Dallas. The point spread in football is the analog to a stock price in business. The collective expectations of all participants in the market determine both a point spread and a stock price. If more bettors put money on the favored team, the point spread will increase; if more investors buy a stock at a given price, the stock price will rise. In both the NFL and in business, as the real game grew in stature and prominence, the expectations game became more and more sophisticated. In both cases, dedicated individuals emerged to ply their trade in the expectations market, becoming NFL bookies or bettors, capital markets brokers or investors. But unlike American capitalism, the NFL looked thoughtfully at the relationship between the real game and the expectations game and identified a serious danger. After the 1962 season, Paul Hornung, the Green Bay Packers halfback and the league’s most valuable player (MVP), and Alex Karras, a star defensive tackle for the Detroit Lions, were accused of betting on NFL games, including games in which they played. Pete Rozelle, just a few years into his thirty-year tenure as league commissioner, responded swiftly. He suspended Hornung and Karras for a full season, and fined five Lions players who admitted to placing $50 bets on that year’s Championship game between the Packers and the Giants. Rozelle also created NFL Security–what is often called the NFL’s FBI — to work with law enforcement agencies across the country to detect and stamp out player involvement in betting on the NFL. Why did Commissioner Rozelle take such a definitive stand against players and coaches betting on football? He must have envisioned the consequences if he didn’t. Let’s imagine that Lions are playing against the Minnesota Vikings, and the Lions are favored to win by 10 points. The Lions players know their team is better than the Vikings and will almost certainly win the game. So, one of them conspires with some unscrupulous bettors to wager millions of dollars on their opponent, the Vikings. The player then does all he can to ensure that the Lions win the game, but by 9 or fewer points. He has engaged in the art of point shaving , sacrificing a few points of advantage in order to win the game by a lower margin than the prevailing point spread. And he’s made a lot of money for his friends. Executed with precision, point shaving doesn’t damage the team’s record in the real game. But imagine if the culprit is willing to hurt his team’s record in the real market for a short period; in that case, he could try to cause his team to lose a couple of straight games–a practice colorfully known as tanking — so that the subsequent point spread is relatively easy to beat. He could then bet on winning that subsequent game and make a killing. By altering the on-field dynamics, point shaving and tanking have the potential to undermine the integrity of the league and dramatically diminish the experience for fans. Rozelle recognized this, and so did all he could to prevent them from taking root in his league. Rozelle and his successors have enforced a strict separation between the real market and the expectations market; everyone involved in the real game of football — players, coaches, and officials alike — are forbidden to have anything to do with betting on football — on their own games or on other teams’ games. In other words, the NFL has managed the division between the real and expectations market in a manner that is exactly the opposite of the way we have managed it in business. American capitalism encourages, and in many cases even mandates, the players in the real game to invest heavily in the expectations game, and has built structures that bring the key players from the two markets into almost constant contact. CEOs are given significant (if not overwhelming) amounts of stock-based compensation to ensure that they focus first and foremost on shareholder value maximization. Those same CEOs interact with capital-market participants frequently, providing guidance to them about likely future performance so that folks can place their bets — oops, that’s make their trades — with appropriate information. No wonder the NFL has grown dramatically in power and influence while our capital markets lurch from crisis to crisis; we’ve enshrined a crisis-generating structure into our capital markets. More on this dynamic tomorrow. This post is excerpted from Fixing the Game: Bubbles, Crashes, and What Capitalism Can Learn from the NFL , to be published May 3 by the Harvard Business Press. Read more from Fixing the Game here .

Read the full article →

Roger Martin: Fixing the Game: What the NFL Can Teach Us About Executive Compensation

April 25, 2011

The last decade has seen unprecedented upheaval in our capital markets, marked by two massive crashes that destroyed billions of dollars in value: the dot-com crash of 2000-2 and the financial market crash of 2008. After 2002, a whole series of regulatory changes were adopted to prevent a future crash. Yet the next crash still came. And as it did, one might have expected that observers would ask: what did we do wrong the last time? Why didn’t our fixes do what they were intended to do? One might have expected that we would ask these hard questions. Yet we haven’t. And as long as we fail to understand the real, fundamental reasons behind these crashes, and the bubbles that preceded them, it is only a matter of time until the next crisis. The mayhem in our capital markets is ultimately the unfortunate effect of tightly tying together two different markets: the real market and the expectations market. The real market is the world in which factories are built, products are designed and produced, real products and services are bought and sold, revenues are earned, expenses are paid and real dollars of profit show up on the bottom line. That is the world that business executives control — at least to some extent. The real market has been utterly overtaken in emphasis by the expectations market. The expectations market is the world in which shares in companies are traded between investors — in other words, the stock market. In this market, investors assess the real market activities of a company today and, on the basis of that assessment, form expectations as to how the company is likely to perform in the future. The consensus view of all investors and potential investors as to expectations of future performance shapes the stock price of the company. Modern capitalism dictates that the job of executive leadership is to maximize shareholder value, as measured by the market value of the company’s stock. To that end, the CEO should always be working to increase the stock price, to raise expectations about the company’s prospects ad infinitum. And just how does that play out? To see, let’s look at how expectations play out in professional football. In 2007, the New England Patriots had a remarkable year; the team went unbeaten in the regular season, racking up a stellar 16-0 record. Eight of its starters went to the Pro Bowl. Quarterback Tom Brady was named the league’s most valuable player, and head coach Bill Belichick earned coach of the year honors. The team scored more points that season than any team in history. It was, in short, a superlative performance. In terms of the real market, the Patriots were perfect. But the Patriots’ performance in the expectations game was mediocre in comparison. In betting vernacular, a favored team covers the spread when it wins the game by more than the point spread. In this case, the point spread is the moral equivalent of the stock price, in that it captures the consensus expectations of all bettors. In their sixteen-win regular season, the Patriots covered the point spread only ten times. Why? Because expectations grew to unattainable levels. The Patriots had started the season with sensible expectations and played, admittedly, exceptionally well. The average point spread for the first eight weeks was 10.5, and the Patriots were able to cover the spread in every game, winning by an average of 20.5 points. But as they continued to perform very well, expectations rose; bettors expected the Patriots to continue to be more and more exceptional each week. Soon, the Patriots were facing the largest spreads in the history of the NFL. They played very well in the second half of the season too. They still won each game, but in the final eight weeks, the Patriots beat opponents by just 12.5 points on average. Yet point spreads had risen to an average of 16.5. Against these heightened expectations, the Patriots covered the point spread in only two of their games in the second half of the season. Brady’s Patriots thrashed the Dolphins 28-7 in the second-to-last game of the season, but still couldn’t meet bettors’ expectations for a win by 22 points or more. The lesson is that no matter how good you are, you cannot beat expectations forever. Expectations will get ahead of you. Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had perhaps the finest season of any quarterback in NFL history, but he couldn’t beat expectations more than ten of sixteen times. And that is why quarterbacks aren’t compensated on the basis of how they perform against the point spread. While Tom Brady was leading his team to a perfect record but only beating expectations ten times out of sixteen, his young counterpart on the Cleveland Browns, Derek Anderson, was leading his team to a decent but unspectacular 10-6 record on the field, but a strong 12-4 record against the spread. If the point spread mattered more than the real game, Anderson, whose team missed the playoffs, would have out-earned Brady, who took his team to the Super Bowl championship game and set records doing so. The problem is, in American capitalism, CEOs are compensated directly and explicitly on how they perform against the point spread; that is, against expectations. Imagine the following scenario: a company decides to pay its CEO $10 million in total compensation for the year. It could pay that CEO $10 million in salary or it could pay him $2 million in salary and $8 million worth of phantom stock units (say 100,000 units with the stock at $80 per share). The simple $10 million salary embodies no incentive to increase the stock price, while the $2 million salary plus stock embodies a large incentive to do so. If the CEO can double the price of the stock by the time he retires, he will have earned $18 million in that year rather than $10 million. No wonder, then, that our executives focus almost entirely on the expectations game. They do so at the cost of turning their attention from the real game, from real customers and from real value. In the face of expectations that can run wild, CEOs have increasingly focused on what they can control: managing share price over the short run. Shareholders, on the other hand, should want CEOs to focus on the long term, on increasing share price more or less forever. So it turns out that rather than aligning the interests of shareholders and executives, stock-based compensation has reinforced the agency problem it was created to solve. What’s more, it has destroyed long-term shareholder value by driving shorter horizons of decision making and contributing to shorter CEO tenure. CEOs know that expectations are likely to fall, so they have incentive to leave or retire in order to cash in stock-based compensation instruments while expectations are high. Focusing executives on shareholder value maximization using stock-based compensation was supposed to give shareholders a better deal. Yet, it simply hasn’t worked out that way. Total returns on the S&P 500 for the period from the end of the Great Depression (1933) to the end of 1976, the beginning of the shareholder-value era, were 7.5 percent (compound annual). From 1977 to the end of 2010, they were 6.5 percent–suggesting that shareholders have little to celebrate, despite having been made the clear priority. It is time to do away with stock-based executive compensation. It’s just one lesson we can learn from the NFL and one step towards fixing the game. This post is excerpted from Fixing the Game: Bubbles, Crashes, and What Capitalism Can Learn from the NFL , to be published May 3 by the Harvard Business Press.

Read the full article →

Mike Green: No Excuses: Galvanizing Black Innovation and Capital

April 20, 2011

I’ve listened with great interest to intellectual minds like Dr. Cornel West , politically savvy leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson , and informed media personalities like Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner . All have uniquely insightful perspectives — and all have outspoken views about the job the president is doing. Yet, Black America — which has remained consistently rutted within a channel of economic depression since Dr. Martin Luther King marched the segregated streets of Selma, Alabama — was quite familiar with the aforementioned names long before it ever pinned all of its hopes on the name Barack Obama. I’m not quite sure if any of the outspoken critics expressing disappointment in this administration have articulated specifically how Black America ought to have already experienced the change hoped for in 2008. The most extraordinary notion I’ve gleaned from some expressions is the implication that President Obama should accomplish — within the span of four years — what Black Americans have failed to accomplish collectively over the past three decades. Allow me to be clear on the point. Black America is currently experiencing double the unemployment rate of the nation’s overall jobless rate. That double-the-overall-jobless-rate statistic is virtually unchanged from the days when little Barack was in diapers. Black America has watched the ever-widening chasm between Black wealth and White wealth quadruple over the past couple of decades. But the real insight is inherent in the fact that Black wealth in the 1960s was 25% of White wealth … quadruple what it is today (6%). So, what has President Obama prescribed for the economic ills of Black America? The exact same prescription he’s written for the nation as a whole: Investment in STEM education Investment in technological innovations Investment in high-growth entrepreneurship The refrain ought to be sung by the whole choir: Investment. Investing in Black America Where is the Black investment in STEM education? Given that STEM literacy is the passport to a bright future in the increasingly competitive and global 21st century innovation economy, there’s a real need to focus on black student preparation and achievement in STEM at the k-12 and post-secondary levels. Recognizing that large numbers of black students are educated in public school districts located in our major urban centers, we need not look any further than Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Baltimore… as examples of failure where high schools have served as drop out factories rather than STEM magnets that prepare black youth for the promise of the innovation economy. In Philadelphia, for example, less than 1 percent of its students graduate and go on to finish college at a 4-year university in any form of a STEM major. Less than 1 percent. Philadelphia serves as a microcosm and is indicative of a widespread problem in all of our urban centers that have failing public school systems … where a majority of African-American students are educated. What future does a system of education hold for our students when it cannot effectively prepare them for an increasingly competitive market? Where is the Black capital investment in high-growth entrepreneurs? There are many exciting business incubators and accelerators, like Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley, TechStars in Colorado, Jumpstart, Inc. in Ohio and many more across the nation. But where is such training, mentoring and investment within Black communities? Where is the investment in channels of access to capital for entrepreneurs? There are more than 500 angel and venture capital groups within the developed mainstream national infrastructure. But there are very few Black American groups. The Minority Angel Investment Network is such an effort. But where are collaborators to help it grow? A recent rising star, H360 Capital , aims to address this virtually vacant space by raising $100 million in venture capital. How much more effective would its Black principals be in generating the funds they need if they received eager investments from thousands of high net worth Black Americans and collaboration with other like-minded groups? Black Americans MUST be willing to invest in Black America. How embarrassing is it to beg White power brokers in government and corporate America to do exactly what we are not willing to do? Investment Capital Infrastructure Allow me to be clear on the point. The Kauffman Foundation is the nation’s largest nonprofit focused on investment in entrepreneurship. It reports that all net new jobs since 1980 were the result of companies less than five years old. That sort of high-growth entrepreneurship is the direct result of capital investment from private sector angels and venture capitalists. The high-risk private capital investment industry is relatively new. Angel groups that invest in seed stage and early stage companies have just one main trade organization: Angel Capital Association . It’s only six years old. The venture capital industry, which traces its beginning back 65 years, really sprang up as a viable investment industry in the 80s. It, too, has one main trade organization: National Venture Capital Association . In 2008, venture capital-backed companies produced nearly $3 trillion, roughly 21% of GDP. In 2007, all of the nearly two million Black-owned businesses combined produced $137.5 billion, less than 1% of GDP. Since 1970, venture capitalists have rained torrential buckets of cash ($456B) into more than 27,000 companies. Black Investment Required There are three things we know: Private equity capital investments did not rain down upon Black entrepreneurs to any appreciable degree over the past three decades. Black America was, and is, disconnected from the private capital equity investment infrastructure and high-growth entrepreneurial ecosystem. Black America has failed to develop its own investment infrastructure and high-growth entrepreneurial ecosystem. There are three main reasons I believe Black America has remained economically devastated for decades since its Civil Rights Era victory, despite boasting nearly $1 trillion in annual consumer spending last year: Black America does not invest in nor focus on STEM education (to any appreciable degree) as its highest education priority to fill the creative technology funnel with Black innovators. Black America has not developed its own angel and venture capital networks and connected them to the existing private capital infrastructure. Black America does not energetically and enthusiastically invest in high-growth entrepreneurship through development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The Black Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative ( BICI ) is the only national voice in Black America specifically focused on connecting 20th century Black America to the 21st century “Innovation Economy,” comprised of three core pillars: STEM Education, Capital Investment and High-Growth Entrepreneurship. No Excuses There is no excuse for Black America to go another decade enduring severe economic depression. Consider the progress Blacks have made in other hostile arenas within a very short time span: Television Industry : In 1988, Bill Cosby was juggling Jello alongside a popular family show that carried his name and re-defined how America viewed Black families. Today, the name Cosby is an iconic name in American entertainment. Pro Football : In 1988, Doug Williams was the first Black quarterback to win a Super Bowl. Matching wits with Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway, Williams out-Elwayed Elway in a masterful comeback from 10-0 at the half to lead the Redskins to a 42-10 victory in Superbowl XXII. Today, the NFL has many talented Black quarterbacks, coaches and front office personnel. Some Blacks in the pro sports world are now team owners. Music Industry : In 1988, Whitney Houston was on top of the music world after her second album release the previous year debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200s music chart. Today, she remains the most awarded female artist of all time. We see Black music moguls today who compete on a level that Motown never could in its heyday. Wherever Blacks have concentrated our time, talent, efforts and monetary investments, we have succeeded in transforming the space. Black Angels and Entrepreneurs I commend Rutgers Business School’s Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development in producing the first-ever Black Angels and Entrepreneurs Forum in partnership with the Black Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative. This is an opportunity for Black Americans to engage in a collaborative effort to change the economic paradigm. It is time for Black America to invest in developing a private capital equity investment infrastructure and a high-growth entrepreneurial ecosystem. Black America’s experienced academic, political, business and community leaders, as well as its high net worth asset class, must be willing to come to the table of collaboration to leverage their influences in generating the type of exponential economic impact Black America MUST produce to save itself from a potential future as a permanent underclass.

Read the full article →

Scott Mendelson: The Shot Heard Round the Industry… Studios’ doomed plan for pre-DVD Video On Demand.

April 5, 2011

I know when I saw that fantastic Green Lantern footage on Saturday, my first thought was “Wow, I can’t wait to watch that in my home just sixty days after theatrical opening day for just $30!”. Fox, Warner Bros, Sony, and Universal have announced today that they will begin offering ‘first-run’ theatrical features on Video On Demand through DirectTV just sixty days after their theatrical release. Other outlets, such as Comcast and Vudo, will eventually join the fray in a limited capacity, but for now the first shot has been fired. Ironically, the two studios which will likely have the heartiest summer, Disney and Paramount, have for the moment abstained. Disney has Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides just at the start of the summer. Paramount has an uber-strong slate the entire season, with Thor , Kung Fu Panda 2 , Super 8 , Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon , and Captain America . Point being, they’ll be counting money from May to August, so there really was no incentive to piss off the exhibitors. And the theater chains are indeed mighty pissed. First off, the launch will begin in April, with Unknown (Warner Bros), Just Go With It (Sony), and Cedar Rapids (Fox) being available to rent (?) for $30. The short version is that theatrical releases, apparently on a pick-and-choose basis, will be available on this service just 60 days after theatrical release. As of now, Fox claims that all of its Fox Searchlight films (of which Cedar Rapids is one) will go VoD sixty days after wide release, which is interesting considering how few of them actually end up going wide ( Cedar Rapids has yet to top 600 screens and is already bleeding auditoriums). It’s no secret that most mainstream theatrical films do the majority of their business in the first seventeen days or so. All studios onboard are claiming that any film that is still playing strongly in theatrical will not-so-quickly end up as a home rental option, and said policy will not apply to the would-be mega franchise pictures. Of course, that puts theaters in even more of a pickle, as they have no way of knowing if a given film will end up as a Video On Demand option until after the film opens in theaters. But the real question is how exhibitors will treat the theatrical runs of films that, in all likelihood, will end up as a at-home rental option in just two months anyway. Since two of the majors and (at this point) all of the mini-majors (think Lionsgate, Weinstein Company, and Summit Entertainment) are abstaining, will theaters give preferential treatment to the studios who don’t yet take part in this program? Will Lionsgate’s Madea’s Family Reunion get more and bigger theaters on April 22nd than Fox’s Water For Elephants ? And the weekend after that, will the theater chains conspire (for lack of a better word) to slightly level the playing field for Weinstein Company’s Hoodwinked Too and Disney’s Prom against Universal’s Fast Five ? Will The Hangover 2 end up in just 1,500 screens while Kung Fu Panda 2 gets 4,000 a day prior? Will, as David Poland suggested , the theaters limit the opening weekend potential for major franchise pictures like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II by simply not running the film on as many screens? And just what will happen when a studio’s major theatrical release gets kneecapped because everyone is staying at home watching their previous theatrical release from 60 days ago? This is going to get very interesting, and possibly quite a bit bloody. But all of this speculation presumes that audiences are even interested in ‘premium pricing’ On-Demand rental services. And the system as set up seems doomed to fail for one very specific reason: the very people who can wait 60 days to watch a movie at home are generally the kind of people who can wait 90-120 days to watch that same movie at home. The ‘wait for Netflix’ crowd are willing to wait precisely because they don’t need to see a movie right when it comes out. They can wait and see it in a three-to-four months when it becomes available in their queue. And, generally speaking, these casual moviegoers are damn-sure not going to pay $30 a pop to watch a movie in their home when they can wait and see it for basically $1. I’m a movie nerd, and I’ve said before that I’d gladly pay a premium price to watch a new release at my home… over opening weekend. When you toss in two tickets plus babysitting for a few hours, you’re already over the $30 threshold, so paying $30 to watch Water For Elephants at home would be a great deal for me… if it were right when the movie came out. But if I’ve already decided to wait for a specific film, either because my wife wants to see it and getting a babysitter isn’t possible right away, or I just don’t need to see it in theaters, I’m probably not going to pay $30 just to see that movie thirty days earlier than I otherwise would for basically nothing (I rent my films through Blockbuster Online, which is a flat monthly fee). And if I’m going to pay $30 to see a movie long after its theatrical premiere, I am generally going to wait for the Blu Ray and pay to own said movie for all time. But let’s pretend that I’m willing to pay $30 to see Water For Elephants in mid-June (after all, it’s no secret that I have a new baby due right then). After all, my maybe my wife wants to see it and I, as a film nerd, have a certain disposition to seeing movies as quickly as convenient. Maybe some of you who read this blog feel the same way. But would your friends, neighbors, or family give a crap about seeing a film 30-60 days earlier than they would on DVD for a 30x up-charge? The studios are always babbling about ‘more options’ when it comes to entertainment, which is how we end up with same-day releases on DVD, Blu Ray, OnDemand, iTunes, etc. But this new system doesn’t give audiences more options. It merely ends one option earlier than normal and forces audiences to choose between paying $30 for a secondary viewing option now or $1-5 for that same viewing option a month or two later. If ‘premium’ theatrical Video On Demand is going to work, regardless of whether it SHOULD work, it has to be within the first ten days of opening weekend, if not right on opening weekend. If you’re a sports fan, ask yourself: would you pay $60 to watch a prize fight or NFL playoff game even 48 hours after it happened? But studios are loathe to commit to basically cutting off their primary distribution source, and they know that the theater chains would eventually just stop booking those films anyway. In the end, and this applies to the current pricing system as announced today as well, the films that will get hurt are the smaller pictures, the genre thrillers and character dramas that are so difficult to get funded anyway. So I’ll end this by asking you, the reader: what do you think of the new Video On Demand system? What would you be willing to pay when for alternatives to theatrical viewing of a given film? How do you think the theaters should respond? Is this the beginning of the end, or merely the end of the beginning? Scott Mendelson

Read the full article →

Jack Myers: Television Network Upfront 2011/2012: ‘Them That Has, Gets!’

March 29, 2011

As the national TV Upfront season moves toward the May/June negotiating period, one thing television networks, media agency executives and marketers all agree upon is that broadcast and cable network TV remains the engine that pulls the media and marketing train. As the digital rocket ship climbs through the atmosphere, marketers’ remain committed to shoveling more and more coal to fuel the TV train and keep it running smoothly. In this week’s Jack Myers Media Business Report , I shared historical network TV Upfront cost-per-thousand data from 2002 to 2004, the two seasons following the 2001 recession. The 2002-2004 Myers data arguably serves as a forecast for the 2011/2012 national television Upfront season, which should be one of the most interesting and robust in recent history. As a child, I played Monopoly with my dad. When I landed on his hotel on Boardwalk or Park Place, his favorite comment was “Them that has, gets!” In this year’s Upfront, the broadcast and major cable networks have the best real estate and have built out their houses and hotels. As advertisers move their pieces around the Media Monopoly board, they can still buy less desirable real estate, but the best properties are controlled by the TV networks. Once the agency buyers pass “GO” and move into the May/June negotiating season, there will be no Get Out of Jail Free card and it’s pretty clear that “Them That Has, Will Get!” With broadcast network TV rating erosion taking its toll again this year, the leading networks will be under pressure to generate cost-per-thousand increases that not only compensate for lost rating points, but that assure meaningful revenue increases. Strikes threatening the NFL and NBA seasons add increased demand for primetime network and high appeal, male targeted programming. It’s unlikely that broadcast and leading cable networks will increase year-to-year sell out. Marketers’ options are limited as digital video CPMs remain greater than broadcast and cable costs. Cinema, video place-based and point-of-influence media, and local TV and radio will all benefit with increased revenues but will not significantly reduce advertiser demand for network TV. The most appealing national broadcast syndicators will experience strong CPM increases, especially as supply erodes with the shift of Oprah to cable. Smaller cable networks will experience some gains but agency buyers point to their clients’ current reach over-exposure on cable and are reluctant to increase their current cable ratings levels. The top ten cable networks led by Turner, A&E Networks, FX and NBCU are likely to generate costs-per-thousand increases at or above broadcast network levels. Bottom line, the national TV marketplace is healthy. Marketers continue to depend on broadcast and cable network TV as the foundation of their advertising plans. And this year’s Upfront will be fascinating to follow as it continues to unfold. Share your comments here . These issues and more will be discussed this Thursday at the annual IRTS Foundation Media Buyers Newsmaker Breakfast, featuring Gibbs Haljun of MEC Global, Greg Kahn of Optimedia, Mike Rosen of Starcom, Maribeth Papuga of Mediavest and Dani Benowitz of UM. I am moderating the panel discussion, which will be at the Pierre Hotel. Advance purchase is required and tickets are available by calling the IRTS at (212) 867-6650 x 11. Jack Myers can be reached at Jack@mediadvisorygroup.com . JackMyersThinkTank is free and underwritten, as part of MediaBizBloggers.com , by subscriptions to Jack Myers Media Business Report ( www.jackmyers.com ). Subscribe free to all MediaBizBloggers reports at www.MediaBizBloggers . For Jack Myers Media Business Report subscription information visit www.myersreport.com or contact Jack Myers at Jack@mediadvisorygroup.com . Jack Myers and Media Advisory Group provide details on all underwriters and companies in which we have an investment at www.jackmyers.com . This commentary was originally published at www.jackmyers.com

Read the full article →

Brian Frederick: NFL Teams Should Immediately Cease Soliciting Season Ticket Payments

March 15, 2011

The NFL would like you to believe there will be a 2011 season. Not only that, they  need you to believe there will be a 2011 season. They don’t want you to stop spending your hard-earned money on NFL merchandise, NFL-endorse products, and of course, tickets and seat licenses for games next season. Consider Monday’s letter to fans from Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank. Blank writes, “I’m sure our current position raises questions by you regarding the status of the 2011 season,” (yes) but then says that the “most important thing you should know is that we remain committed to reaching an agreement that is fair to both sides and does not disrupt the 2011 season.” These aren’t the droids you’re looking for… But here’s the truth — now that the NFL lockout is upon us — and the NFL Players Association has decertified — it is more likely than ever that there will be missed games in the 2011 season. Both sides share the blame for this. Just as both sides stand to profit off fans when a new agreement is finally reached. The fact that stadiums may sit empty on Sundays this fall hasn’t changed NFL teams’ season ticket policies. Or stopped them from shamefully selling personal seat licenses. It’s business as usual for NFL teams, even though, for the time being, they don’t have a product to sell. So NFL fans are being forced to hand over their money on the  chance that there will be a season, which isn’t the same as purchasing tickets (and seat licenses) for a 2011 season. I’m not an expert on issues of fraud, but this situation sure smells fishy. The NFL has announced that season ticket holders will receive full refunds for any games missed. But that means that the teams have access to a tremendous amount of money to collect interest on in the meantime. Will NFL teams return money for missed games with interest? Minnesota owner Zygi Wilf and some other owners are promising season ticket holders/; “Simple interest, calculated at an annual rate of 1%, will be paid on refunds. Interest will be calculated for the period beginning on the date that a game is cancelled through the date that the refund is processed.” One percent! And only if you act now and send payment! NFL teams should immediately cease soliciting payment for season tickets, individual game tickets and personal seat licenses. And NFL players should call on NFL teams to do so, as well. Far too often, NFL players ask the fans for support without actually going to bat for the fans, themselves. Here’s one of those times they can speak on for fans, even it it’s against their own best interests. If NFL owners and players are unwilling to do this, Sports Fans Coalition will ask the Federal Trade Commission and the States Attorneys General  to look into the issue of NFL teams soliciting money for a product that — as of now — doesn’t exist. (Keep in mind that virtually all NFL teams play in stadiums that have received some, if not all, of their financing from the public.) Otherwise, at the worst, the NFL will be guilty of defrauding fans out of their money. At best, the NFL will be asking fans to bear the brunt of a work stoppage. Either way, the fans lose. Again. Brian Frederick is the Executive Director of SportsFans.org. He holds a Ph.D. in Communication and lives in Washington, D.C. Email him at brian@sportsfans.org.

Read the full article →

Video: NFL, Union Offer Few Hints of Progress on Labor Accord

March 11, 2011

March 11 (Bloomberg) — The National Football League and its players’ union gave little indication after a 15th day of mediated talks that they’re close to bridging an almost $1 billion a year divide before the scheduled expiration of their labor accord today. The NFL and its union are struggling to agree on how to split up $9 billion in annual revenue, the most of any professional sports league. The labor accord originally was scheduled to end last week. Bloomberg’s Michele Steele reports.(Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Boland Says NFL Lockout Would Have Major Economic Impact: Video

March 4, 2011

March 4 (Bloomberg) — Robert Boland, a professor of sports management at New York University, talks about contract negotiations between the National Football League and its players’ union. The NFL and the union agreed on a seven-day extension of their contract today to try to avert a work stoppage. Boland talks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television’s “Bottom Line.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

With Lockout Looming, NFL Owners Downplay Economic Benefits Of Football

March 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — In the past two decades, National Football League owners have received at least $5 billion from local governments to build and maintain football stadiums for their lucrative franchises. The argument was almost always the same: With a little taxpayer investment, the city would get a big boost in economic activity. With no investment, the team would up and leave. With three days until the owners lock out the players for refusing to give up their claims to $1 billion of the sport’s $9 billion in annual revenues, local officials and players are raising concerns that a canceled season could deprive cities of needed economic activity — as much as $160 million per city, according to the NFL Players Association — at the worst time possible. But now that the argument is working against it, the NFL calls such concerns “fairy tales.” Economists have debunked claims that a shutdown would devastate a stadium’s host city, or that a new stadium offers the kind of windfall that would justify significant public contributions. But NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had a different take in 1997, when he was a league executive. “A new stadium provides more than just a new place to watch a game,” Goodell said at the time. “It can revitalize and stabilize both a team and a city.” “For them to be dismissive of the NFLPA’s claims now is sort of ironic,” said Dennis Howard, a business professor at the Lundquist College of Business in Oregon. “Many of them have used the economic benefit argument as a way of extracting significant public support for new stadiums.” Twenty-eight of the league’s 31 stadiums (the Jets and the Giants share the New Meadowlands Stadium) have been built with some amount of public financing, according to the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University’s law school. Eleven have been 100 percent publicly financed. Taxpayers have put up more than $5 billion since 1990. In Indiana in 2004, the president of the Marion County Capital Improvement Board argued that a new publicly-funded multi-use venue would keep the NFL’s Indianapolis Colts from leaving town, which would “create 1,500 full- and part-time jobs and annually produce $104 million in economic benefit.” The $750 million Lucas Oil stadium went up in 2008, with the public bearing 50 percent of the cost. In Ohio in 1995, a Hamilton County commissioner argued that a study showed the Cincinnati Reds and Bengals were worth $160 million a year to the city’s economy, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and that the town should pony up. Paul Brown Stadium was built in 2000 as a $453 million gift from taxpayers. The Maryland Stadium Authority, which successfully poached the Cleveland Browns and renamed them the Baltimore Ravens in the mid-1990s, estimated that a football stadium inhabited by Cleveland’s team would add 1,400 jobs and $123 million annually to the city’s economy. The state of Maryland coughed up $200 million for a stadium, built in 1998. The city of Cleveland, meanwhile, ponied up 76.5 percent of the $315 million used to build a new stadium for a new Browns team in 1999. Now, the NFL’s owners are threatening to scrap the coming season if the players, who currently receive 50 percent of the $9 billion revenue pie, don’t cede $1 billion of that revenue. The owners say they need the money for stadiums, but the players union is skeptical because the owners have refused to open their books to show how they spend the cut of revenue they already receive. Owners also want limits on rookie pay and two additional regular season games. The players, for their part, have been happy with the status quo, and say more regular season games will lead to more players with grievous injuries. The NFL owners’ threats of abandoning host cities or a whole season are probably more trustworthy than the economic arguments in favor of public financing for stadiums or the players’ claims of an economic calamity precipitated by a work stoppage, both of which have been deemed false by academics. Analyzing economic data from local Florida economies during professional sports strikes and lockouts — like the one that may be at hand for the NFL — economists Robert A. Baade, Robert Baumann and Victor A. Matheson concluded in a 2006 paper ( PDF ), that a team’s presence or absence does not have a measurable impact on the surrounding local economy, despite the estimates by “sports leagues, franchises, and civic boosters” using “league and industry-sponsored studies.” “An analysis of taxable sales in Florida cities demonstrates that none of the 6 new franchises or 8 new stadiums and arenas in the state since 1980 have resulted in a statistically significant increase in taxable sales in the host metropolitan area,” they wrote. “In addition, using the numerous work stoppages in professional sports as test cases, again no statistically significant effect on taxable sales is found from the sudden absence of professional sports due to strikes and lockouts.” Mark Rosentraub, a sports management professor at the University of Michigan, told HuffPost that the NFLPA overreached with its $160 million estimate of the economic impact of a lost season. “It fails to account for the fact that people spend money anyway,” Rosentraub said, noting that people will spend their disposable income at places like movies theaters and restaurants if not football stadiums. Rosentraub said, however, that while a canceled game won’t have a big effect on a region as a whole, it could have big effects within that region. And smaller cities would suffer more without a season, he said, than larger cities would. “It’s gonna matter a whole lot to the city of Cleveland,” he said. “It won’t even be perceivable in San Diego.” It could also matter a lot to some of the individual people who work at or near stadiums. John Marler is a beer vendor at professional hockey, baseball and football games, as well as special events, in Detroit. Marler, 25, told HuffPost that if there’s no football season, he’d lose about 15 percent of his income. “Basically, you’re just taking money, you’re taking revenue away from businesses that provide jobs,” said Marler, a member of the AFL-CIO-affiliated union Unite Here, which has partnered with the players’ union to fight the lockout. “The people that lose — it’s the businesses, it’s the people that work in casinos, the people that work in stadiums. Those are the people that lose out.” And Jerry Watson, owner of a bar near Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wis., told HuffPost that without an NFL season, his business would lose a third of its income. “It’s going to hurt the state of Wisconsin,” he said. The Baltimore Business Journal estimated that the state of Maryland stands to lose $3.8 million in revenues just from ticket sales. When HuffPost first asked the NFL to respond to various mayors’ complaints that a lockout would hurt their cities, a league spokesman sent a link to a story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that rate the $160 million claim “false.” The story suggested Baade’s more modest estimate of a $16 million impact would be more accurate. Nevertheless, several experts seemed to find the NFL’s “fairy tales” position deeply ironic in light of the arguments used to win taxpayer dollars for new stadiums. “This is a classic case of the NFL talking out of both sides of its mouth,” Tim Chapin, an associate professor in the department of urban and regional planning at Florida State University, wrote in an email. “The economic benefits are HUGE when the NFL needs a stadium built, but the benefits are minuscule when the numbers don’t reflect well on the league. The truth is that the economic benefits are relatively small, but they are almost certainly in the millions.”

Read the full article →

Brian Frederick: It’s Time to Include Fans in NFL Labor Talks

February 17, 2011

Fans deserve to be present at NFL negotiations. Tuesday night, the Sports Fans Coalition sent a letter to the NFL and the NFL Players Association requesting that representatives from the fans be present during future negotiations until an agreement is reached. Allowing representatives of the fans to be present in the room is the least the NFL and NFLPA can do. In the letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, we write: We are not asking for a seat at the negotiating table — although we believe fans deserve one — but merely to be present in the room so that we may inform fans across the country about the state of ongoing negotiations and ensure that progress is being made towards an agreement that ensures a central consideration of fans. As fans and taxpayers, we have invested over $6.5 billion around the country on NFL stadiums, in addition to the billions we have spent on tickets and NFL merchandise. We have transformed our urban centers with the promise that new stadiums would serve as an economic boon to the surrounding community. A work stoppage would be devastating to many cities, including local workers and businesses. The NFL and other professional sports leagues also enjoy an exemption from federal antitrust statutes with respect to negotiating broadcast rights, which has enabled the owners and players to make significant revenues. If the NFL and NFLPA cannot come to an agreement and a devastating work stoppage is the result, the public has a right to know why. We realize that our request is likely to be greeted with skepticism by the NFL and NFLPA and some fans. But why? Why should the negotiations be behind closed doors if fans have such a massive stake in the future of the NFL as well? If the league and the players want to play in stadiums that are completely privately financed on private property, they are free to do so. They can lockout and strike and blackout all the games they want. Sports are different from other businesses, though. Not only do they ask for heavy public subsidies, they unite our communities in a way that Coca-Cola, Ford Mustangs and American Idol never could. These are our Packers or our Lakers or our Red Sox. We feel invested in the teams. And oftentimes, that’s because we literally are invested in them. So it’s time that all those who have invested — with our hearts and our tax dollars — have someone representing them in the negotiating room. Hell, it’s gotta work better than the status quo. If you agree, please let the NFL and NFLPA know and head over to Save Next Season to show your support for the fans. Brian Frederick is the Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition . He holds a Ph.D. in Communication and lives in Washington, D.C. Email him at brian@sportsfans.org.

Read the full article →