office

Huffington Post…

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

Read the rest here:
Owner Of ‘Illegal’ California Gold Mine Surrenders To Face Charges

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

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha Feb 9 (Reuters) – California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a veteran prosecutor with acute political instincts and a reputation for thick skin, gambled big in the settlement negotiations with banks over illegal foreclosures. It’s a gamble that appears to have paid off spectacularly. Harris, whose state has been one of the hardest hit by the U.S. foreclosure crisis, pulled out of talks with the banks last September, saying what they were offering was grossly insufficient. At the time, her office said on Thursday, California was being offered between $2 billion and $4 billion. The gambit carried significant risks. California is a non-judicial foreclosure state, meaning foreclosures can happen outside the court system. Thus there are no court files filled with the notorious “robo-signed” documents, leaving Harris with less leverage than other states in negotiating with the banks. Yet on Thursday, Harris held a press conference in Los Angeles to herald a deal that looks exceptionally favorable to California. Out of the $40 billion in total benefits that are expected to flow from the $25 billion settlement that the banks agreed to pay, California is set to emerge with some $18 billion. Harris wrung a commitment from the banks to reduce loans to distressed homeowners by $9 billion, and to provide $3 billion to assist short sales. Another $6 billion will fund restitution and anti-blight programs, among other things. There are also enforcement and penalty provisions unique to California that Harris said will make sure the banks comply with the terms of the settlement. Harris’ hardball tactics reflect a woman who has prospered in the rough and tumble politics of the Golden State. Born in Oakland, California, she is the daughter of a Tamil mother, a breast cancer specialist who emigrated to the United States in 1960, and a Jamaican American father, a Stanford University economic professor. Her parents divorced when she was a toddler and her mother raised Harris and her sister to be proud African Americans during the tumult of the Civil Rights era. By virtue of her gender and her parentage, Harris is the first female, the first African American and the first Asian American attorney general in California, and the first Tamil American attorney general in the United States. A career prosecutor, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 after defeating two-term incumbent Terence Hall. She was re-elected unopposed in 2007. Convictions in San Francisco increased sharply during her tenure. But her unshakeable opposition to the death penalty led to a bitter stand-off with the city’s police department when, just four months into the job, a police officer was gunned down and killed by a gang member and Harris declined to seek the death penalty. She also came under fire when a scandal engulfed the San Francisco crime lab, resulting in the mass dismissal of drug cases. Yet she remained a highly appealing political figure, dubbed “the female Barack Obama” by some wags. In 2010, she prevailed over a weak field to win the Democratic nomination for attorney general, and then barely edged her Republican rival, Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, in the general election. Harris is widely considered to be a likely future candidate for higher office; if the mortgage settlement proceeds as planned, it could ultimately help more than just the troubled homeowners. (Reporting By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Richard Chang)

Go here to read the rest:
The Woman Some Are Dubbing ‘The Female Barack Obama’

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

{ 0 comments }

The Story Of Obama’s Brush With Political Disaster

February 10, 2012

Shortly after four o’clock on the afternoon of Wednesday, April 13, 2011, U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner walked down the hallway near his office toward a large conference room facing the building’s interior. He was accompanied by a retinue of counselors and aides. When they arrived in the room — known around Treasury simply as “the large” — four people were seated at a long walnut table on the side near the door. Geithner and his entourage greeted them, then walked around to the far side and took their seats.

Read the full article →

U.S. Clamps Down On ‘Sex In The City’ Counterfeit Perfumes

February 10, 2012

The ladies of “Sex and the City” are still cool enough for China’s massive counterfeit market. Counterfeit perfume seizures by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection surged in the United States last year, jumping 471 percent to a total value of $9.4 million. And of all perfumes seized, the one most often found was called “Sex in the City,” a counterfeit variation on the HBO trademark. The surge in fake fragrance raids was the result of new partnerships between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and American companies like HBO trying to protect their trademarks, the agency said in a report . “The collaborative effort that we’ve had with Customs have been incredibly effective and we’ve been happy with the results,” said HBO spokesman Jeff Cusson of the seizures. U.S. fragrance companies have turned to law enforcement for help in battling counterfeits after nearly a decade of weak sales, which dropped 20 percent between 2005 and 2010, according to Euromonitor International , a market research group. While the recession is partially responsible, the groups says, top-level brands may no longer hold the same weight over imitations that they once did. “Fragrances have lost their mystique and become less ‘special’ and commoditised,” Euromonitor wrote in a May 2011 report . “With over a hundred new fragrance launches a year, the glut of fragrances in the marketplace has also created consumer confusion.” Or perhaps Americans are simply no longer willing to pay $100 for designer fragrances when cheap versions abound. The “Sex in the City” fake, for example, is sold all over the Internet for less than $10. Versions like Lust, Kiss, Love and Dream are currently available on Amazon.com , Overstock.com and many other beauty sites. Three of the four countries most often responsible for counterfeit perfumes seized in 2011 are located in Asia — China, India and Hong Kong — but the perfumes also often originated from Germany, according to Customs seizure data. Most fans of the fragrance likely don’t know that the “Sex in the City” perfume is a fake at all, especially since the HBO-approved scent was only

Read the full article →

Lam Research Names New CEO, Martin Anstice, to Board

February 9, 2012

FREMONT, CA–(Marketwire – Feb 9, 2012) – Lam Research Corp. ( NASDAQ : LRCX ), a leading global supplier of semiconductor wafer fabrication equipment and services, today announced the expansion of its board of directors with the addition of Martin Anstice, the company’s president and chief executive officer.

Read the full article →

CommerceTel Appoints Tim Schatz as Its CFO

February 9, 2012

SAN DIEGO, CA–(Marketwire – Feb 9, 2012) – CommerceTel Corporation ( OTCBB : MFON ) (“CommerceTel” or “Company”), an award-winning provider of proprietary mobile marketing technologies and solutions, announced that the board of directors has appointed Tim Schatz as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, effective February 1, 2012.

Read the full article →

STWA Appoints New CFO Gregg Bigger as Company Enters Commercialization Phase

February 9, 2012

SANTA BARBARA, CA–(Marketwire – Feb 9, 2012) – STWA, Inc. ( OTCBB : ZERO ) (“STWA” or the “Company”), a developer of energy efficiency technologies in the multi-billion dollar oil pipeline and diesel engine markets, today announced the appointment of Mr. Gregg Bigger as its Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Bigger is a seasoned finance executive with extensive experience in the banking sector as well as strategic consulting for operating technology companies.

Read the full article →

Signature Group Holdings, Inc. Announces Departure of Kenneth Grossman as President

February 9, 2012

SHERMAN OAKS, CA–(Marketwire – Feb 9, 2012) – Signature Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company” or “Signature”) ( PINKSHEETS : SGGH ) today announced the resignation of its President, Kenneth S. Grossman. He is expected to depart the Company in April following the filing of the Company’s 2011 Form 10-K with the SEC. Signature has entered into a consulting agreement with Mr. Grossman pursuant to which Mr. Grossman will continue to provide advice and counsel to Craig Noell, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Grossman will also continue to work with Mr. Noell and Signature’s corporate development staff to identify acquisition and other opportunities to the Company. “We are sorry to see Ken depart,” said John Nickoll, Chairman of the Board, “he is a savvy investment professional with expertise and strong relationships in the distressed arena, and I understand his desire to return to that environment.”

Read the full article →

US Jan budget deficit down to USD27b

February 9, 2012

(MENAFN) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that last month, the budget deficit contracted by around half to USD27 billion, from USD50 million in 2011′s same period, reported Khaleej …

Read the full article →

CFO Michael Kourey to Retire From Polycom

February 8, 2012

PLEASANTON, CA–(Marketwire – Feb 8, 2012) – Polycom, Inc. ( NASDAQ : PLCM ), the global leader in standards-based unified communications (UC), today announced that Mike Kourey will be retiring from his position as executive vice president and chief financial officer of Polycom in order to pursue other opportunities, including continuing to serve on corporate boards and various charitable activities. As Polycom’s seventh employee, Kourey has provided strategic financial expertise and business guidance to the company for 20 years, building a stellar financial position and reputation for Polycom. Kourey will remain with the company until March 7 to provide for a smooth transition, and he will be available as an advisor to the company through May 7, 2012. Separately, Polycom also announced it has appointed Eric Brown as the company’s new chief financial officer, chief operating officer, and executive vice president effective February 21, 2012 (see related release here ).

Read the full article →

German exports grow USD1.3tr in 2011

February 8, 2012

(MENAFN) German exports rose 11.4 percent to USD1.3 trillion last year, but it may decline this year on slower economy, AP reported. The Federal Statistical Office said that Germany exported …

Read the full article →

France’s 2011 trade deficit jumps 35.1%

February 8, 2012

(MENAFN) France’s customs services office said that last year, trade deficit surged by 35.1 percent from the previous year to USD91.2 billion, reported Xinhua News. The customs figures showed …

Read the full article →

Japan’s Jan service sector sentiment index down to 44.1

February 8, 2012

(MENAFN) Japan’s Cabinet Office said that in January, the country’s service sector confidence index dropped to 44.1 from 47 in December, reported Reuters. The office’s survey included taxi …

Read the full article →

AMD Announces Departure of Emilio Ghilardi as Senior Vice President and Chief Sales Officer

February 7, 2012

AMD President and CEO Rory Read to Serve as Interim Chief Sales Officer

Read the full article →

Braintree Names David Corken COO and Tracey Weinberg Senior VP Marketing

February 7, 2012

CHICAGO, IL–(Marketwire – Feb 7, 2012) – Braintree ( www.braintreepayments.com ), an online payments provider that powers commerce for many of the fastest-growing and most discerning Web 2.0, social and mobile businesses in the world, appointed David Corken to the position of chief operating officer and Tracey Weinberg as senior vice president of marketing.

Read the full article →

Obama Reverses Super PAC Opposition To ‘Counter The Weight’ Of GOP Money

February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s campaign is reconfiguring its approach to powerful super PACs, worried the president’s re-election prospects could be overwhelmed by conservative groups raising and spending unlimited amounts of money. The president’s advisers have signaled to donors that he will soften, for the time being, his long-standing opposition to the outside groups, in hopes of assisting their fundraising efforts and leveling the campaign finance field heading into the general election. Obama’s campaign staff will go so far as to appear at super PAC events — though they will not be explicitly raising money. The president will not attend those events, a source confirmed. The new posture is a reversal for the president, and one likely to trouble some in the progressive universe (see: Feingold, Russ). Obama was staunchly anti-outside money during his pre-White House political career, and first ran for the White House encouraging deep-pocketed Democrats to send checks only through his campaign. He wanted a consistently coordinated message and his advisers were willing to starve non-campaign organizations of cash in order to achieve it. When the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United opinion allowing the creation of super PACs, the president and his staff offered sharp denunciations. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” Obama said at the time. He called super PACs a “threat to our democracy.” Politics eventually collided with ideology. In 2010, a wave of conservative money helped Republicans re-take the House of Representatives. The president and his advisers have watched in some horror, meanwhile, as super PACs have helped Mitt Romney submarine challenger after challenger (most notably Newt Gingrich) during the Republican primary this year. The determination was made that they could not unilaterally disarm. As campaign manager Jim Messina said in a blog post late Monday: With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission. Currently, two former Obama aides — Sean Sweeney and Bill Burton — run the most prominent Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action. But that group has been vastly outraised by its conservative counterparts. And the notion that it could bring in the $100 million once projected now seems quaint. Burton was quick to take advantage of the Monday evening news with a well-timed tweet . “As has become evident in the past month, the only enthusiasm in the Republican Party is among oil company billionaires and investment bankers on Wall Street looking to defeat President Obama,” Burton said in a statement. “We’re committed to providing a balance to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers, who have pledged more than half a billion dollars to their effort.” The Obama campaign itself has done fine with fundraising. But as recently as last week, top donors fretted that one well-financed GOP donor could level the playing field if he or she desired. “The money for the campaign side they will do fine, ultimately,” a party fundraiser told The Huffington Post. “I think the problem is on the super PAC side … If I were on the campaign, I would be waking up and saying this is a big f–ing problem, we are going to get buried by these super PACs. And our side, the Democratic side, is not on a level playing field here.”

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Settlement’s Deadline Passes

February 7, 2012

* Dozens of states meet deadline to join mortgage deal * Many states won’t comment about their participation * Deal faces another setback after banks balk at NY suit * California angling for more control over relief By Aruna Viswanatha and Karen Freifeld Feb 6 (Reuters) – A proposed mortgage settlement in the works for more than a year will move forward with more than 40 states joining the deal before a Monday deadline, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said in a statement. States had been given two weeks to assess a proposed settlement, under which top U.S. banks would pay up to $25 billion in exchange for resolving civil government lawsuits about misconduct in servicing home loans and pursuing faulty foreclosures. “The sign-on deadline for the proposed joint state-federal mortgage servicing settlement passed Monday with more than 40 states signing on. This enables us to move forward into the very final stages of remaining work,” Miller said. “Federal and state officials, as well as representatives from the banks, continue to address matters that they must complete before finalizing any settlement,” Miller added. Officials had hoped to announce a final settlement as early as this week. It is unclear if the Obama administration and a group of states will move ahead with a smaller settlement if holdouts continue to drag their feet. Some states and activist groups have been concerned the proposed deal would release banks from too many claims and does not provide enough relief to homeowners. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose participation would grow the size of the settlement by some $6 billion to $8 billion, was not expected to issue any statement on Monday, a person familiar with the matter said. On Friday, Harris told Reuters she was “less concerned with the timeline than the details” of the settlement. A New York lawsuit filed on Friday against JPMorgan Chase , Bank of America and Wells Fargo has also become a stumbling block, according to a person briefed on the negotiations. This person said on Monday that the banks are balking at a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that accuses them of fraud in their use of the electronic mortgage registry MERS. The lawsuit is based on claims that were expected to be resolved through the settlement. The multi-state settlement talks are focusing on the three banks named in Schneiderman’s suit, as well as Citigroup and Ally Financial. Schneiderman has been a key opponent of the proposed settlement. However, Schneiderman said Jan. 27 that the liability releases in the draft settlement had become narrow enough so that a full investigation by a new mortgage crisis unit that he will help lead could move forward. Jennifer Givner, press secretary for Schneiderman, declined to comment on Monday. HOLD OUTS Other states continued to weigh the details until the last minute. In a statement, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Masto said her office is continuing to review the settlement and is advocating for improvements to address Nevada-specific needs. Masto sued Bank of America last year and accused it of violating an earlier agreement meant to resolve mortgage-related claims from its Countrywide unit, and lawyers for the office are in discussions about what impact the settlement will have on the lawsuit, people familiar with the matter said. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Tom Horne of Arizona said on Monday afternoon that Horne was still evaluating the settlement and “may decide by the end of the day.” Even Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who has been on the committee negotiating the deal has not publicly committed to the settlement. A spokeswoman said in a statement that Bondi “remains involved in the settlement discussions in order to reach the best resolution for Floridians and all Americans.” And a spokesman for the attorney general in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, who has been a critic of the proposed settlement, said her office would not have a comment on Monday. Coakley separately sued the same banks in December and accused them of deceptive foreclosure practices, but she has not ruled out joining the multi-state settlement. Her office has been in discussions to carve out certain foreclosure issues specific to her state, people familiar with the matter have said. In particular, Coakley does not want the settlement to allow banks to avoid a look back at past foreclosures after Massachusetts’ highest court voided two home seizures saying the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed. California’s Harris, too, has expressed state-specific concerns that the relief provided in the settlement go to those “most distressed” in her state, and has pressed for some certainty that the relief is regionally proportionate, according to people familiar with California’s concerns. The state has faced some of the worst foreclosure rates in the country. One in every 31 housing units in California received at least one foreclosure filing last year, according to RealtyTrac. Meanwhile, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan has been pushing hard in recent weeks to close and sell the deal. He spoke to left-leaning bloggers in a conference call over the weekend to convince them of the merits of the settlement. Representatives of several other state attorneys general either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

Read the full article →

Euro-zone’s govt debt falls to 87.4% by end of Q3

February 7, 2012

(MENAFN) Eurostat, the statistics office of the European Union (EU), said that by the end of last year’s third quarter, the euro-zone’s government debt slipped to 87.4 percent of gross domestic …

Read the full article →

Dana Radcliffe: A Glaring Omission in the Senate’s Insider Trading Bill: Fair Disclosure

February 6, 2012

Poor Raj Rajaratnam. He’s the billionaire hedge-fund manager who in October was sentenced to 11 years in prison for trading stocks on nonpublic information obtained from corporate insiders. If only his sources had been members of Congress or their staff and the nonpublic information had concerned pending legislation likely to affect certain stock prices, he would still be in business. For it is perfectly legal for lawmakers and other federal officials to divulge information that, if made public, would be market-moving and thus gives anyone who trades on it a lucrative advantage over other investors. In fact, large hedge funds — important donors to political campaigns — aggressively seek such information, with some success, in private meetings with legislators and other officeholders. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that, in a December 2009 meeting with key lawmakers, a small group of hedge funds learned — hours before it was announced — that Senate Democrats had eliminated a proposed government-run insurance plan from the health-care reform bill. Although the hedge funds would not say how they used the information, the Journal notes that the news “was potentially worth millions of dollars to the investors,” since it would boost shares of major health insurers, with whom the government plan would have competed. Similarly, in January 2010, as the Senate debated the Dodd-Frank bill, which tightened financial services regulation, several hedge-fund managers met with Senator Dodd and discovered that, contrary to prevailing opinion, he did not favor capping fees on debit-card purchases. The expectation of a fee cap had been a drag on shares of Visa and Mastercard, since it would hurt their revenues. This material (or market-moving) news of Senator Dodd’s position garnered by the hedge funds remained nonpublic for weeks. Even though such activities are legal, it’s hard to see them as ethical. From a moral point of view, they are no different from a kind of insider trading prohibited by law. In both cases, people whose positions in economically significant organizations give them access to market-moving, nonpublic information selectively pass it on to others who then carry out unfair market trades with counterparties ignorant of the traders’ covert advantage. The legal difference is that, unlike government officials, when corporate executives give inside information to others who trade on it, they violate a fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of their companies’ shareholders. It is the breach of that legal duty that makes both the disclosure and the use of inside information criminal acts. Congress appears ready to address this disparity. Last week, the Senate passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which declares that members of Congress and thousands of other federal workers are legal fiduciaries. Whereas corporate managers’ fiduciary duty is to their stockholders, these government officials would have an analogous duty to Congress, the government, and all U.S. citizens. Ostensibly, if this provision becomes law, it will be illegal for covered officials to share material, nonpublic information with others they know are likely to trade on it. But even if the bill is enacted in its current form, it almost certainly will not keep members of Congress and their aides from disclosing high-value information to hedge funds in private conversations. For one thing, what prosecutor could plausibly argue that a government official has the very same duty of “trust and loyalty” that a corporate manager has? The nature of federal officials’ relationships with their institutions and fellow citizens is radically different — in numerous ways — from that of a business executive to her firm’s shareholders. In any event, it is preposterous to think it would ever be Congress’s intent that a law it passed prevent its members from consulting with investors for fear of revealing nonpublic information on which the investors might trade. If there is an ethical disconnect here, what can be done about it? In the late 1990s, the Securities and Exchange Commission came under pressure from “Main Street” investors and shareholder advocates to stop public corporations from giving advance releases of earnings forecasts and other material information to favored investors before making it public. The SEC responded by adopting Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD), which stipulates that, when a corporation provides market-moving information to any investors, it must make it available to all investors at the same time. In approving Reg FD, the SEC argued that it is inherently unfair for only a few investors to receive material information and that the practice undermines the public trust in the fairness of financial markets. Clearly, if these arguments justify Reg FD, then they warrant a parallel requirement on government officials. Of course, legislators and regulators need to discuss public policy matters with investors, including hedge funds. But why should members of Congress and other federal insiders be excepted from the same demand for fair disclosure the government has imposed on corporate officials? Perhaps that’s a question voters should be asking Senate and House candidates.

Read the full article →

Crucial Reform Seen As ‘Ferociously Difficult’

February 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — Tax reform sounds like a good idea to lots of people, but where to start? Eliminate the popular deduction for home mortgages? End the write-off for charitable contributions? How about expanding the Social Security payroll tax? Not likely. Politicians of all stripes in this presidential election year are clamoring for simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes. But that would mean Americans would lose some of their prized deductions. Not that Congress actually is likely to end tax breaks for home loans or religious and charitable contributions anytime soon. President Barack Obama and his chief Republican challengers – Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – certainly aren’t advocating that. In fact, recommendations to trim the mortgage deduction made in 2005 by a tax-overhaul panel convened by then President George W. Bush and again in 2010 by a deficit-reduction committee set up by Obama were ignored by both those presidents. Overhauling the complex U.S. tax code could mean that for everyone who would pay less someone else would pay more. And every existing provision in the code has its advocates. “Tax reform is ferociously difficult. If you tackle it straight up, the likelihood of success is rather small,” said Henry Aaron, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “Whenever you try to take money away from somebody, they will fight harder to keep it than will those who stand to gain.” And if deficit reduction is also a goal, it makes the job even harder. Most recently, a bipartisan deficit-reduction congressional “supercommittee” failed to meet a Thanksgiving 2011 deadline and had to disband when it could not find common ground on tax changes. None of the major tax overhaul proposals now on the table seems likely to be enacted given the current political rancor in Washington. Of course, a lot could depend on the outcome of the November elections. For now, the urgency for both parties is focused on the Bush-era tax cuts, scheduled to expire at year’s end. Republicans generally want to make them permanent. Democrats would like to raise taxes on the wealthy but keep them at present levels for all others. The income tax as we now know it has been around for nearly 100 years, and it’s had only a few major overhauls. The last major restructuring came in 1986, when Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill were able to put aside their political differences to strike a grand deal that both simplified the tax code and lowered rates on most individuals. “To get comprehensive tax reform, you have to have tremendous presidential leadership. There’s no way around that to be successful,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005 and now heads the American Action Forum, a conservative public policy institute. In addition to being a hot issue on the campaign trail, tax reform is also being closely studied by congressional leaders who oversee tax-writing, Holtz-Eakin said. “So with all the key players all saying `Let’s do it,’ I think that’s promising.” “Now the next issue is, what is `it’?” There, we don’t have a consensus,” he added. Obama has proposed ending tax breaks for U.S. companies moving jobs or profits to foreign countries. He also would create a minimum tax on their overseas earnings. And he has suggested new tax breaks for businesses that move jobs back to the U.S., for domestic manufacturing and for companies that invest in towns that have suffered major job losses. But getting most attention is his plan to tax personal incomes above $1 million – including investment income – at a rate of at least 30 percent. “Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires,” Obama said in his State of the Union address. “Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.” Obama also wants to see corporate taxes lowered but hasn’t said by how much. The White House has signaled he’ll unveil details on Feb. 13 when he submits his budget for the fiscal year that begins Sept. 1. The nominal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, the highest in the world after Japan. However, few companies pay that much after taking various deductions. Because of recent special deductions in the government’s stimulus programs, including the ability to write off the full cost of purchases of new equipment, corporations last year paid just over 12 percent on average. That is expected to rise to about 26 percent this year, according to Congressional Budget Office calculations. Romney would make permanent most Bush-era tax cuts and would eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for those earning under $200,000. He would lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Jobs and tax reform have been leading issues in the GOP primaries so far. Most Americans believe that the tax system is unfair and would like to see it changed, recent polls suggest. The polls show a majority believe upper-income Americans pay less than their fair share, although far more Democrats believe this than Republicans. There is also a big political divide over whether to keep the current system of taxing investment income – such as dividends and capital gains – at lower rates than wages. Far fewer Democrats than Republicans want to keep things the way they are, polls show. Romney, one of the richest presidential candidates ever, recently disclosed that he paid federal taxes at an effective rate of around 15 percent because most of his income came from investments that are taxed at that rate, compared to a top rate of 35 percent for wages. That disclosure has helped fuel the recent surge of interest in tax reform. Gingrich would let people choose whether to file under the current system or pay a 15 percent “flat” tax while preserving the mortgage interest and charitable deductions. He would eliminate the capital gains and estate taxes and would cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would reduce the number of tax brackets to two – 10 percent and 28 percent, exempt domestic manufacturers from the corporate tax and halve the top rate for other businesses. He would triple the personal exemption for dependent children. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, would eliminate the federal income tax altogether. Also the Internal Revenue Service. He would vote for a national sales tax, and he supports certain excise taxes and certain tariffs. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has said that the wealthy would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Romney, Gingrich and Santorum tax plans. The center did not evaluate Paul’s plan The Tax Reform Act of 1986 backed by Reagan and O’Neill reduced the number of tax brackets and lowered the top marginal tax rate to 28 percent from 50 percent (it’s now 35 percent). The reduction in individual taxes was in large part paid for by repeal of the investment tax credit, which effectively raised corporate tax payments to the Treasury by 25 percent, or about $100 billion a year in today’s terms. But the political climate was far difference in 1986. Reagan was a popular second-term president with a good working relationship with Congress. The deficit was under control and the economy was growing, not limping like now. Economist Bruce Bartlett, author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take,” is not optimistic for major tax reform no matter who wins the election. “I think the most we can hope for is a modest improvement to fix some glaring problems in the code,” he said. As to those calling for starting from scratch with a whole new tax system such as the so-called fair tax or flat tax, “I don’t believe that’s going to happen,” Bartlett said. “I think that’s just a political non-starter.” ___

Read the full article →

Man Convicted For Major Mortgage-Fraud Scheme Paid To Have Key Witness Killed

February 6, 2012

NEW YORK — Convicted of engineering a $100 million mortgage-fraud scheme, Aaron Hand was yearning for vengeance and stuck in prison, prosecutors said. So from behind bars, he plotted to have a key witness against him killed. He hired an undercover investigator posing as a hit man, issued instructions to make the murder look like a gang attack and said he wished he could be there to see the witness suffer, prosecutors said. Hand was sentenced Monday to an additional eight to 16 years in prison for the contract-killing scheme, on top of the eight years and four months to 25 years he’s serving in the mortgage fraud. Hand’s “actions strike at the heart of the justice system,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said when the former AFG Financial Group Inc. president pleaded guilty last month to conspiring to commit murder. Hand, 40, acknowledged he began in July to try to arrange the slaying of one of the people who had cooperated with prosecutors and testified against him at his 2010 trial. With Hand at the center, the sprawling case involved a cast of corrupt mortgage brokers and lawyers who pocketed money that banks lent people to buy real estate, duping both sellers and buyers along the way, prosecutors said. The witness was one of 27 people who pleaded guilty or were convicted; prosecutors said have refused to identify the person or discuss the outcome of his or her case. “The case itself was filled with rats. Big time. One – one got me pretty … good,” Hand told the investigator in a secretly recorded conversation when they met in August at Coxsackie Correctional Facility in New York’s Hudson Valley, prosecutors said when Hand was arrested in the hit plot last fall. “You don’t get a free pass in life when you put away 30 … people.” To get the investigator $150 to buy a gun, Hand told his unwitting parents and an associate he needed to bribe a prison guard to avoid getting transferred to a crummy cell, prosecutors said. Hand outlined an elaborate plan for the investigator, initially telling him to block the witness’ driveway so he couldn’t escape and to kill the man’s wife and children if they were home, according to prosecutors. After deciding it would be better to carry out the killing elsewhere, he told the investigator to paint gang symbols on the intended victim’s car so the murder would seem gang-related, prosecutors said. “I’d kill him myself” if not in prison, Hand told the undercover agent, whom he agreed to pay $2,000, according to the DA’s office. Hand passed up his chance to speak at his sentencing. His lawyer, Lee A. Ginsberg, declined to elaborate outside court. Garden City, N.Y.-based AFG Financial Group found real estate owned by people with financial problems. Then the company lined up straw buyers who needed cash but had good credit to front as purchasers of the properties, prosecutors said. The buyers were told the deals would earn them and investors a healthy return and help people save their homes. The conspirators then presented inflated property appraisals and phony loan qualification packages to get banks to finance the real estate purchases. Once the deals closed, the conspirators took the money and didn’t pay the sellers or anyone else, prosecutors said. The straw buyers ended up with bad credit, the sellers got foreclosed upon and banks lost millions of dollars. Some had sold investments based on the worthless mortgages. AFG Financial Group isn’t related to Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, an insurance company that goes by AFG. ___

Read the full article →

Vivian Weng: The Death of an American Tradition

February 6, 2012

If you were a teenager growing up in suburban America in the ’90s, chances are your social life revolved around the mall. It’s no secret that the relevancy of this American tradition has plummeted with the rise of e-commerce, but the question still remains: What will happen to the vacant shells that previously housed America’s most beloved stores? Of the 7 billion square feet of real estate dedicated to American shopping centers, a significant percentage — particularly stores carrying food and household products — will continue to operate without much change, at least in the next 10 years. Another percentage will likely be repurposed into office space and apartments, as has been done during previous economic downturns. To me, the most interesting part of this question is how space will be transformed to serve customers even better by complementing, not competing with, the online shopping experience. Here are four of the most promising possibilities that have emerged in the past year: 1. “Inventory light” stores Korea’s Tesco has reinvented grocery shopping by leveraging Korea’s 91 percent mobile broadband penetration, the highest in the world. Tesco has set up ” virtual grocery stores ” in metro stations by plastering walls with posters of supermarket shelves, stocked with “virtual goods.” Rather than physically purchasing a box of cereal, for example, a customer just needs to scan the QR code next to the image of the cereal to add it to her shopping list. Once she has finished shopping, she pays through her phone, and the groceries are delivered to her house the next day. Now, let’s apply this idea to the department store. In the past, department stores have bought and allocated products on a store-by-store basis. This process caused all types of inefficiencies, since demand for specific items and sizes is difficult to forecast on a store level. In the future, however, imagine this: Each store carries just 1 size of each item. Customers can try on pieces and, if they wish to make a purchase, can scan the item with their phone (or text the item’s code to a dedicated number). The customer pays online, and the item is delivered to the customer’s house the next day. This “inventory light” retail model reduces the need for storage space in the department store, which allows the store to allocate more space to displaying goods. Inventory management also improves, as the buying function is centralized and all items are stored in a central warehouse, available to fulfill demand from anywhere in the country. 2. Pop-ups The idea of pop-up stores — temporary stores that literally “pop up” and close down within a short period of time — have been growing in popularity since 2009. Pop-ups are useful for a number of reasons: to introduce a new product, to try out a particular location before committing to building a permanent store, to temporarily expand to meet increased demand during the holidays. What we saw in 2011, however, was that brands are increasingly looking at pop-up stores more as a discovery tool to drive brand awareness, rather than as an actual sales channel. For example, eBay launched physical shops this past holiday season in London, San Francisco, and New York, where customers could browse physical products and purchase those products on their phones. The goal? To remind shoppers that eBay also sells new products; the pop-ups were in line with eBay’s “Buy It New” marketing campaign. 3. Delivery hubs Amazon recently launched “Amazon Lockers,” self-service locations where you can have your Amazon goods delivered for pick-up at your convenience. The program is being marketed as a convenient alternative for customers who can’t receive packages at their homes; my guess, however, is that Amazon is testing this bulk-shipping method that could potentially be much more cost effective than shipping individual orders to customers’ homes. Currently, Amazon Lockers are primarily located in convenience stores; but, if and when the program expands (or when other retailers decide to follow suit), vacant mall space may be the perfect location for these delivery hubs. For clothing retailers, in particular, this idea of a “delivery hub” could potentially be expanded to serve as fitting rooms and exchange/return hubs. A customer, for example, could visit a hub to pick up her online order and try on the items. If she needed to return or exchange an item, she could do so at that location by placing the item in a bin, which would aggregate returned items and be shipped back to the warehouse once per week. 4. Retail experiences Brands are quickly realizing that amazing in-store experiences, particularly those that can’t be replicated online, are a recipe for success. The best example is probably Apple, whose 326 stores attract more visitors in a single quarter than Walt Disney’s four biggest theme parks attract in a full year. From the Genius Bar, which offers on-hand technical help, to the complimentary iPhone training sessions, Apple stores have become a destination for customers to fully experience the Apple brand. Similarly, yoga lifestyle brand Lululemon offers free in-store yoga classes, which allow customers to test out yoga mats, mingle with other yogis, and truly understand what the Lululemon lifestyle is all about. Even uber-luxury players are paying attention: Louis Vuitton has rolled out a number of luxury emporiums , complete with art collections, one-of-a-kind vintage pieces, and “handbag bars,” where shoppers can customize their bags from the comfort of a bar stool. Vivian Weng is the co-founder of FashionStake, a venture-backed online marketplace for independent fashion. She is a recent graduate of Harvard Business School.

Read the full article →

Fred Goldring: A Strategic Insurance Policy for Self-Absorbed Rich People

February 5, 2012

Ok let’s look at the current state of affairs in the U.S. from the perspective of that portion of the 1% who only sees things from their own completely self-interested viewpoint. You’re someone who has worked really hard — the old fashioned way — to earn what you have achieved (or you are part of the lucky inheritance club and your father or grandfather worked really hard to get what you now enjoy). You’ve hit it big and now have lots of money and a great lifestyle. You have a very difficult time rationalizing or even comprehending why your dollars should go towards higher taxes to support a bunch of poor, know-nothing, lazy people, particularly those immigrants and undocumented aliens who come here and live off the fat of the land for free (when they’re not otherwise taking away those menial manual labor jobs from real Americans). And you are dead set against that big wasteful government machine that only encourages people not to work, live off welfare and food stamps and now get expensive or subsidized medical care via “Obamacare” which you are paying for. So with all of this money out of your pocket for taxes, what does it do for you personally? You are all set in your life and what happens to these people is not your concern because, hey, it’s America, and everybody has a chance to attain the American Dream just like you did. If they don’t, it’s their problem, not yours; they are obviously just lazy or unlucky, some make it and some don’t, that’s unfortunately the way the world works. So keep taxes as low as possible (particularly for you as one of the “job creators”), pay for only the minimum basic government services which are necessary, and let these people fend for themselves or be cared for by the “private sector” which you are certain always steps in to fill the void. Here’s the problem with this ideology: it’s actually in your self-interest to take care of these people. If history has taught us anything, it was that this same attitude eventually caused the fall of many civilizations throughout the millennia, (many of which were around a lot longer than the 236 years that the United States has existed). What happened in those situations was that too much money, power and control were in the hands of too few at the top who started to distance themselves from the masses and pull the ladder up behind them, leaving them in the dust. And they got mad as hell and couldn’t take it anymore. When you actually look at the facts about taxes today, you see that we are paying lower taxes than ever before and all that has been suggested is closing tax loopholes and raising the top tax bracket from 36% to 39% (that was the top rate when Clinton was in office and we had a surplus). But since that may still seem like a lot to ask, let’s look at this in a completely different way. Instead of looking at all of this merely as the government taking your money and giving it to unentitled poor people, how about looking at this slight increase in your taxes (which frankly won’t make one iota of a dent in your lifestyle) as a strategic insurance policy or a hedge? You regularly take out life insurance policies, health insurance policies, liability policies, disability policies, car insurance and homeowners, renters insurance policies — even policies to pay inheritance taxes. How about an insurance policy against people rising up and just taking what you own and possess because you’ve pushed them too far and they have no where else to go? To understand what I mean by this, let’s start by looking at something that is obvious and that many of us take for granted: that invisible line separating the rich suburbs from the poor neighborhoods and the inner city. In case you haven’t noticed, there is no wall or physical barrier that keeps poorer people from invading the rich neighborhoods. Yeah, I know we have the police force, private security patrols, alarms, etc. and we know that “those people just wouldn’t do that”. But in reality all we really have in place is an implied social contract. The contract is that those poor needy people will more or less leave you alone as long as you take care of their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, protection, education and the like). However, with the direction we are going in lately, we seem to be getting dangerously close to imposing a condition of desperation with these people because we are threatening to take away (and in some cases already have) their opportunity to get these basic human necessities. And we will discover that there will come a point when these people will have been pushed too far and will feel they have nothing left to lose. They will then come to realize very quickly (much like the emperor’s new clothes) that this “line” between their neighborhood and yours is, in reality, invisible and non-existent. In a nation where we’ve made the ability to get a firearm much easier than getting a driver’s license and now have hundreds of millions of guns out there, is it really worth the risk of pushing poor people (and middle class people who are on the verge of falling into poverty) to the boiling point? People who feel oppressed also have new tools to connect and rise up behind a cause than ever before. Can anyone say Arab Spring? Occupy Wall Street? Putting aside the rational Judeo/Christian moral arguments about helping those less fortunate and in need, creating a societal structure to help people pull themselves up and giving them the opportunity to advance in society, it is in the self-interest of you as a “one percenter” to help these people. If you don’t, you run the very real risk of the “invisible barrier” evaporating and having real class warfare in this country. Despite the political assertions to the contrary, it is not “”class warfare” to tell the 1% that some of their money should go towards helping those less fortunate – it’s actually good, smart, strategic business. It’s an insurance policy to protect your assets and good fortune. There’s that old saying about how “the pigs get rich and the hogs get slaughtered”. The completely self-interested members of the 1% need to decide soon whether they are going to be pigs or hogs. You might say I’m just being paranoid. I say look back at history for this lesson, don’t take my word for it. And for a bit of underscored irony, be sure to catch the new Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises that millions will be watching this summer. Who is that new villain who is terrorizing the people of Gotham City? His name is Bane. Sounds eerily like the name of Romney’s former company.

Read the full article →

Mall Closed After Shoe Shoppers Become Unruly

February 5, 2012

HAGERSTOWN, Md. — Authorities say a Hagerstown, Md., mall was closed temporarily after a crowd became unruly while waiting for a shoe store to open and begin selling Nike’s new Foamposite sneaker. The Washington County Sheriff’s office says officers went to the Valley Mall after a disturbance was reported among about 100 people waiting for the store to open Saturday morning. The sheriff’s office says some shoppers told officers they had been waiting in line overnight and others began cutting in line. Sheriff Douglas Mullendore told The Herald-Mail of Hagerstown the release of the new shoe drew shoppers from as far away as Washington, over 70 miles away. Mullendore said after the mall was locked down, patrons were escorted into the shoe store a few at a time. ( ) http://bit.ly/yirQ0S No one was arrested.

Read the full article →

London developers refurnish offices into homes

February 5, 2012

(MENAFN) A wave of refurnishing is hitting the London’s office buildings as a shrinking financial industry and the prospect of leasing out buildings for free prompts landlords to convert offices …

Read the full article →

2008 Mortgage Deal Shows How Not To Structure Current Settlement

February 5, 2012

As states gear up to finalize a national mortgage servicing settlement, some are looking to avoid the painful lessons of a 2008 mortgage deal that failed to deliver the help promised to desperate homeowners. Nearly four years ago, 11 states settled with Countrywide, the giant subprime mortgage lender acquired by Bank of America in 2008 that was accused of knowingly making unaffordable loans that hurt homeowners. The bank agreed to provide up to $8.4 billion in assistance to 400,000 borrowers struggling to keep their homes, but as of October 2011, only $237 million has been paid out. Given the Countrywide settlement’s underperformance, some states are hesitant to join the $25 billion servicing settlement currently being negotiated between state attorneys general, the Obama administration, and five of the nation’s largest banks. The states have until Monday to decide if they will sign on to the deal, according to the Iowa attorney general’s office. “Based on our experience with the Countrywide settlement, if we ever do a deal of that magnitude again we will be looking for a built-in enforcement system that includes strong penalties for nonperformance … You know, once bitten, twice shy,” said a source who works for the attorney general of one of the states that signed onto the Countrywide deal and is deciding if it will join the current settlement. The source is not authorized to speak on the record. The current settlement grew out of the “robo-signing” scandal of 2010, in which banks are alleged to have systematically forged documents and wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners. Under the proposed deal, five of the nation’s largest banks — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi and Ally Financial — would provide $25 billion in assistance to needy homeowners by changing the terms of their mortgage, refinancing their mortgage, or reducing the amount of principal owed on their mortgage. Five states — California, Nevada, New York, Massachusetts, and Delaware — left the negotiations last year over concerns that the deal would be too soft on banks and deliver too little to homeowners. To date, none of those states have rejoined the talks. The Obama administration, which is pushing states to sign on the new settlement, agrees that the Countrywide deal has underwhelmed. “The Countrywide settlement has not delivered the relief it was designed to deliver,” said Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan on a call with reporters on Saturday. But the new deal will hopefully avoid repeating that mistake, Donovan said. Under the Countrywide deal, Bank of America did not have to actually provide $8.4 billion in help to homeowners. Rather, the terms were such that the bank simply had to offer assistance, irrespective of whether the offer would actually help the borrower or whether it was ultimately accepted. “Bank of America could just mail a letter to a homeowner, and get credit for helping that borrower, even if the person didn’t take them up on the offer,” said the source in the office of one of the attorneys general who signed on to the deal. “And there were folks who would take Bank of America up on the offer, and maybe make one payment under the new loan terms and then default on the second or third payment. The bank quickly foreclosed on them, but the bank still got credit because it offered the help to the borrower.” Under the new deal, the banks will not receive credit for helping borrowers until there is clear evidence that the homeowner has benefited from the assistance. “There will be no credit for principal reduction unless it has happened, has actually occurred, and that homeowner was able to stay in their home and pay on their new mortgage for at least 90 days,” Donovan said. Another problem with the Countrywide deal is that it does not enable the states to hold the bank accountable to its promise to help homeowners, said Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, a collection of nonprofits that advocate for consumers. “Perhaps the terms weren’t tight enough, so that poor performance is still in compliance. Because if the terms were tight and Countrywide wasn’t complying, the states could go back in to reinforce it.” Some states are so frustrated with the Countrywide settlement’s lack of effectiveness that they want out of the deal altogether. In the last year, both Nevada and Arizona have asked the courts to excuse them from the settlement so that they can go after Bank of America independently. Bank of America maintains that it is fulfilling its commitment under the deal. “The bank is on track to reach the nearly 400,000 estimated offers … and offers to date have amounted to $14.1 billion in potential savings,” said Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon. Nevertheless, both states and the Obama administration are determined to employ a different structure this time around. They plan to implement stronger enforcement measures, imposing financial penalties on banks that do not meet their obligations, according to Patrick Madigan, Iowa Assistant Attorney General and one of the current settlement’s negotiators. “Under the servicing settlement, the banks are obligated to provide the assistance to homeowners,” Madigan said. “Whatever they don’t do converts to cash that they must pay, plus an additional penalty of 25 to 40 percent, so the banks are highly incentivized to perform.” Additionally, the servicing settlement has a monitor to enforce the agreement, which Madigan says is key to making sure banks comply with the deal. “This agreement has a very robust enforcement mechanism, including an independent monitor. State attorneys general having a monitor over national banks is a significant achievement all by itself. There is no comparison between the enforcement and monitoring of this case and Countrywide.” The Obama administration appointed North Carolina Banking Commissioner Joseph Smith as monitor, whose track record impresses consumer advocates. “They’ve appointed somebody I have a lot of respect for,” said Ira Rheingold, president of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. But Rheingold cautioned that the effectiveness of the deal cannot be assessed until several years after its implementation. “What happens after the deal is reached is what really matters, he said. “We won’t know whether it’s good or bad until a few years down the line, and it won’t be good if it ends up dependent upon the banks good faith to act appropriately.”

Read the full article →

SEC Reaches Settlement With Former Qwest CFO

February 3, 2012

DENVER — The Securities and Exchange Commission has reached a settlement with former Qwest Communications International Inc. Chief Financial Officer Robert Woodruff over its civil fraud lawsuit. Woodruff agreed to settle without admitting or denying allegations that he and others gave investors a skewed impression of the company’s performance between 1999 and 2002, according to court documents. He would be ordered to pay a disgorgement of $1.7 million, interest of about $640,000, and a $300,000 fine under terms of a proposed final judgment. The SEC also has agreed to dismiss similar claims against former Qwest accountant Frank Noyes, with the parties bearing their own legal costs over years of litigation. “Mr. Woodruff is happy to put this matter behind him,” his attorneys John Carroll and Steven Glaser said in a written statement Friday. “After six long years, Mr. Noyes has been vindicated. Vindicated at last. This is how it should have ended,” Noyes’ attorney, Forrest Lewis, said in an email. A phone message left at the SEC office in Denver wasn’t immediately returned. Woodruff and Noyes were the last remaining defendants in a lawsuit the SEC filed in 2005 accusing former Qwest executives and employees of fraud or insider trading. Some defendants had claims against them dismissed while others, including former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, reached settlements. The lawsuit was filed months after Qwest agreed to pay $250 million to settle SEC allegations of “massive financial fraud.” Nacchio settled with the SEC after he was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison for insider trading convictions in a criminal case. His criminal sentence also ordered him to pay $63.6 million in fines and forfeitures. The SEC had alleged Woodruff misled investors by not specifying how much of the company’s revenues were from one-time sales and how much was recurring. Noyes was accused of helping Qwest improperly record revenue for a quarterly period ending Sept. 30, 2001, by backdating a contract that was signed Oct. 1, 2001. Noyes’ attorney had said the deal was essentially done late Sept. 30, 2001, but was signed a few hours after midnight. CenturyTel Inc. completed its purchase of Qwest last year. ___ Online:

Read the full article →

Micron CEO Dead In Plane Crash

February 3, 2012

Steve Appleton, Chairman and CEO of Micron Technology, Inc. , died in a small plane crash on Friday, according to a statement released by the company’s board of directors . Appleton was 51 years old. From the board’s statement: “Our hearts go out to his wife, Dalynn, his children and his family during this tragic time. Steve’s passion and energy left an indelible mark on Micron, the Idaho community and the technology industry at large.” The company plans to release more details later in the day. According to Business Insider , Appleton had been previously injured in a separate plane crash in 2004. Founded in 1978, Micron is one of the world’s top manufacturers of gadget components like solid state memory drives (SSD), dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) and flash memory, as well as complementary metal–oxide–semiconductors (CMOS) and more. Appleton joined the company in 1983 . He was named president and chief operating officer in 1991, and in 1994 was named chairman, chief executive officer and president. He stepped down from his role as president in 2007 but retained the titles of chairman and CEO until his death. UPDATE: The Associated Press reports the following : “Appleton, a professional stunt plane pilot and former motocross racer, was the only one in the plane when it crashed at the Boise airport.”

Read the full article →

Jeff Reeves: Five Reasons Zuckerberg Is Wrong to Take Facebook Public

February 3, 2012

If you believe Mark Zuckerberg’s sanctimonious letter to prospective investors, Facebook apparently is all about altruism — not turning profits. According to Zuck, “We don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services.” This passage, and other parts of the letter, raise some serious questions about Zuck’s true plans. There are a number of very difficult contradictions that arise — not the least of which is whether Facebook can maintain its purported mission of social advocacy while mucking around with fat cat investors on Wall Street after its IPO. Here are some hard questions Mr. Zuckerberg has to answer after his recent letter, which amount to five very big reasons Zuckerberg was wrong to take the privately-held Facebook into the public arena: If it’s not about money … why go public at all? Zuckerberg’s letter begins, “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.” So I’ll start with the $5 billion question everyone should wonder: If it’s not about getting filthy rich or turning Facebook into a corporate monstrosity, then why go public at all? Why not go the route of Wikipedia or Firefox or WordPress, digital creations that are open source and not-for-profit? Or why not stay a private company, turning a small profit but answering only to yourself? Take Craigslist. It’s a true social company — Craig Newmark barely monetizes the classified ad and message board giant. Profitable? Not so much. Social legacy? Mission accomplished. Zuck writes, “These days I think more and more people want to use services from companies that believe in something beyond simply maximizing profits.” But unfortunately, maximizing profits (for investors, of course) is the nature of a publicly traded company. The reality is that Wall Street punishes growing companies all the time simply because they aren’t growing fast enough. Take Ford , which was rewarded with an 8% slump in stock recently as thanks for posting $463 million in profit growth . Let’s not be naive, Zuck. You’re really waltzing into the greedy world of Wall Street and pretending like money doesn’t matter? If it’s about making money only to plow it back into the company… don’t you have enough cash already? Facebook financials show $3.5 billion in cash on hand for the social media giant. It will turn roughly $1 billion in profits this year. It is going to raise $5 billion in an IPO. So I have to ask: How much money is “necessary” to make Facebook services tip-top? This isn’t a capital-intensive business like manufacturing. There are no raw materials to buy or costly production machinery to upgrade. Where’s that cash going? Tech companies are exciting because they can start from nothing and succeed simply on a good idea and a lot of hard work. Take the flagship product of Google, its search algorithm. Now that it’s the gold standard of search, I suppose there’s “upkeep” in the form of programmers tweaking the code and server space to make AdSense work. But it basically runs itself. Why else do you think Google has a staggering $44 billion in cash on its balance sheet? It literally has more money than it knows what to do with, toying with cars that drive themselves and offshore windfarms and still turning an obscene profit anyway. In short, either Zuckerberg is eager to hoard cash like other firms , or Facebook is daydreaming about its own self-driving vehicle projects to bankroll despite limited results. If Facebook indeed needs huge capital for a dramatic evolution … what’s the plan? But let’s give Mark Zuckerberg a break for a moment. Let’s assume Facebook is an altruistic company that just wants to facilitate information sharing and make the world a better place. It went public not to make anyone rich, but to fund a brave new mission to take Facebook’s current operations to an even more dramatic scale. OK. Then what’s the plan, Zuck? What comes next in this big scheme of global interconnectedness? Just about the only concrete growth plans I can find are reports indicating India is a big opportunity for Facebook. Its user base in the country has more than doubled in the past year. However, signing up more people isn’t a step change — even if there’s the potential for significant growth this way. China growth is the same story, if and when Facebook makes a push into Asia. Same product, different store. There are hints at news aggregation or even original reporting, judging from a variety of domains registered around the phrase ” Facebook newsroom .” Construction planning documents from the city of Menlo Park, Calif., also hints Facebook intends to house about 9,400 workers by 2017. But nothing concrete has emerged, and certainly nothing that sounds worth $5 billion. If the plan was just to do business as usual … what the heck is the $5 billion IPO for? Other than funding the vanity of a massive corporate campus, of course. If there is no massive evolutionary plan … when will there be one? Maybe I’m expecting too much, and a blueprint of the future isn’t necessary just yet. After all, it’s impossible to get a handle on many Facebook metrics. But here’s one that, while slippery, is at least worth acknowledging: A 2011 report from Inside Facebook says the social network’s growth has slowed down in the mature U.S. market. The service saw nearly 6 million users depart in a single month last year. A drop in the bucket, sure, since Facebook has some 150 million folks in the U.S. with profiles. But not a good sign. Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway and Russia all lost more than 100,000 users each in the same period. Even if we grant Facebook some continued organic growth and discount this report, eventually growth will reach critical mass. Not because Facebook is a bad product , but because that’s how these things work. All fast-growing tech companies experience a flattening out of growth eventually in their core products. They need a second act — for Amazon it was the movement from books into flat-screen TV sales, then into ebooks and currently into streaming video. Steve Jobs didn’t turn Apple into a powerhouse thanks to its Macs alone, but thanks to the iPod followed by the iPhone followed by the iPad. Admittedly, you can make plenty of money on a mature product. Microsoft and Windows are the perfect example of this. But Microsoft also is the perfect example of a stagnant, mature company without a second act — which Wall Street has written off as dead money, with its best days behind it. Once you take a company public, investors demand growth even for a dominant company. So muddling through with India and China signups might work for a few years … but what’s next? Does Zuckerberg understand what leading a publicly traded company is like? Investors might pooh-pooh some of Zuckerberg’s letter as just sound bites for the PR machine, the musings of a silly twentysomething who doesn’t understand big business. But what if Zuck really means what he has written? Remember, Zuckerberg will maintain more than half of the voting rights for this company after its IPO. He also will not answer to an independent board, as CEOs of other publicly traded stocks do. So he could conceivably tell investors to shove it if they complain about profitability or revenue growth. If that happens, then the idea of an IPO really becomes absurd. Why create the media circus and Wall Street shenanigans if you never intended to allow public shareholders a say in your company? Why welcome in money-hungry investment banks and then get upset when they inevitably ask for bigger profits? Investors who truly believe in the Zuckerberg way might be pleased to see that he has a large amount of control in the company he created from scratch. And surely other tech entrepreneurs dating back to the time of Bill Gates figured it out. But the difference is Bill Gates saved his altruistic mission for his foundation, and the noble work he provides with his wife, Melinda. He was a businessman at Microsoft, and a humanitarian outside of the office. It’s awfully idealistic of Zuckerberg to pretend like he can achieve both roles at Facebook. It’s also more than a little naïve. Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com. Write him at editor@investorplace.com, follow him on Twitter via @JeffReevesIP.

Read the full article →

MF Global’s Regulator Says Oversight Was ‘Flawless’

February 3, 2012

The hubris of financial industry titans truly knows no bounds. The chairman of the derivatives exchange that had oversight of bankrupt hedge fund MF Global raised some eyebrows on Thursday morning when he told analysts on a conference call that self-regulation worked “flawlessly” in that case . When Matthew S. Heinz, an analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., asked CME Group chairman Terry Duffy and CEO Craig Steven Donohue a standard question about whether they had learned any lessons from the MF Global debacle, the executives got defensive. Duffy claimed that CME’s self-regulation “worked flawlessly,” adding that “we did the right things and the answers for the Congress, where others we’re seeing they don’t know what happened to the money.” In the wake of MF Global’s collapse, regulators have questioned whether CME Group could have done more to safeguard over $600 million in missing customer money. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not police futures commission merchants like MF Global and has to rely on self-regulatory organizations (SRO) like CME for oversight. CFTC chairman Gary Gensler is skeptical of the SRO system and has ordered a review of how futures brokerages are regulated, Reuters reported Wednesday. Duffy has vigorously defended CME’s role, saying that his examiners noticed problems with MF Global’s segregated customer account days before the bankruptcy — though it failed to report those concerns immediately to the CFTC. The CME boss seems to have a fondness for certain adverbs — in a video last year , Duffy said that the futures and options markets “function flawlessly” for their customers coping with the financial crisis. Obviously not so flawlessly, since CME Group announced on Thursday that it would establish an insurance plan to cover up to $100 million in losses suffered by farmers and ranchers in the wake of another bankruptcy. But, as The New York Times ‘ Ben Protess noted , the plan is “largely symbolic,” since farmers and ranchers represent a tiny slice of the futures market and the fund will not cover losses related to MF Global’s implosion. Will the SEC Friend Facebook’s IPO? Regulators won’t friend the Facebook IPO until they ensure that the social networking giant is making all of the proper disclosures of material information to potential investors. Securities and Exchange Commission staffers will be poring over the company’s S-1 filing in the next few weeks and months to see how it makes its billions. The three top areas of concern, Santa Clara University law professor Stephen Diamond tells Corporate Counsel , are “(1) whether or not the company’s financial records are presented accurately; (2) the presentation of risk factors, such as the capital structure of the business; and (3) the description of the business.” Could Wall Street Criminals Face Longer Prison Sentences? A little-noticed proposal based upon a requirement buried deep in the Dodd-Frank Act could lead to stiffer sentences for financial fraudsters, financialfraudlaw.com reports . On Jan. 19, the U.S. Sentencing Commission proposed changes to current guidelines for financial fraud, insider trading and securities fraud that could lead to more time behind bars — for “sophisticated insider trading,” two points will be added to the “base offense level” (the starting point for establishing criminal sentences), and four points for top-level executives such as officers or directors who engage in such fraud. Bill Kelleher, a lawyer at Robinson & Cole, told the site: If adopted, these changes may dramatically increase sentences for the specific defendants to which they apply and continue the recent trend of stiff sentences in significant cases of securities fraud, insider trading and financial institution fraud. The changes will also likely give federal prosecutors more leverage to obtain guilty pleas and to foster cooperation from other defendants, which assistance is often key in making these types of charges stick due to the nature of the conduct. Quick Hits * Wall Street Wins Again: The Securities and Exchange Commission routinely lets the biggest firms on Wall Street avoid sanctions that apply in fraud cases, according to an analysis of agency documents by The New York Times . * The former global head of Credit Suisse’s CDO unit charged with fraud by federal prosecutors — Kareem Serageldin — has actually been cooperating with the feds and regulators in the UK for four years, his lawyer says . * Former federal air marshal Robert MacLean was fired for blowing the whistle on the Transportation Security Administration’s plan to cut costs by removing air marshals from flights. Even though many lawmakers praised him and the agency fixed the problem, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board sided with his retaliators. He has one last appeal — to sign a petition urging members of Congress to defend MacLean, click here . * Linguists hired by the Dallas field office of the Drug Enforcement Administration were not properly certified, according to the Justice Department’s Inspector General.

Read the full article →

Aquasil International Inc. Appoints James Brooks as New President & CEO

February 3, 2012

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – Feb 3, 2012) – Aquasil International Inc. ( PINKSHEETS : AQUS ) announced today that it has appointed Mr. James Brooks as the new President & CEO and Director of Aquasil International Inc. after the resignation of Mr. Robert Baker who will remain as a Director and officer of the company.

Read the full article →

The Incredible Shrinking Bank Of America

February 2, 2012

Once the biggest bank in the country, Bank of America is shrinking before our very eyes. After more than three years at the top, Bank of America is no longer the nation’s biggest mortgage servicer, falling behind Wells Fargo last year, according to industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance . Wells Fargo is now the biggest mortgage servicer in the country, according to IMF, with $1.82 trillion in business, or 17.7 percent of the total market, compared with Bank of America’s $1.77 trillion, or 17.2 percent. To add insult to injury, Bank of America said today it was selling and leasing back three office buildings in New York and its home town of Charlotte. This all comes less than four months after Bank of America lost its title as biggest bank in the U.S. , when its reported assets fell to $2.22 trillion, below JPMorgan Chase’s $2.29 trillion. These are not necessarily bad things for the bank. It earned the title of biggest mortgage servicer with its 2008 takeover of Countrywide Financial — a deal that saddled the company with subprime mortgage headaches that are still pounding to this day. The companies that now make up Bank of America originated more than $2 trillion in loans between 2004 and 2008, which were arguably the worst years of the housing bubble and crisis, according to a new Morningstar analyst report. Backing slowly away from that business must feel like sweet relief. The bank’s mortgage portfolio could still cost it billions of dollars in losses and lawsuits, which is why it is selling assets, raising capital and shedding debt as quickly as it can. Yesterday it learned creditors are willing to sell back $3.59 billion of its debt, which is more than twice the amount it was looking for in a tender offer. That’s good news for the bank, whose stock price has risen 34 percent so far this year, making it one of the best performers in the S&P 500 stock index. But that follows a 58 percent collapse in the stock price last year. Though the bank is making progress, it’s still far too early to declare it fully safe from having to raise more capital at some point, which could hit its stock price again. “Earnings must improve substantially,” Morningstar analysts wrote, “in order for the bank to achieve escape velocity from the weight of billions of dollars in legacy mortgage-related liabilities threatening to reduce capital to unacceptable levels.” Morningstar and other analysts are optimistic the bank won’t have to raise more capital. Getting small should help — and smaller banks are probably better for the whole economy.

Read the full article →

American Diabetes Association Names Robert E. Ratner, MD, FACP, FACE as Organization’s Chief Scientific and Medical Officer

February 2, 2012

ALEXANDRIA, VA–(Marketwire – Feb 2, 2012) – The American Diabetes Association announced today that Robert E. Ratner, MD, FACP, FACE has been named Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, effective May 7, 2012. Dr. Ratner is currently Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University Medical School and Senior Research Scientist at the MedStar Health Research Institute in metropolitan Washington, DC.

Read the full article →

Magnify.net Announces New Chief Business Development Officer

February 2, 2012

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – Feb 2, 2012) – Magnify.net , the largest video curation and publication platform for web video today announced that John Brown has joined the company as Chief Business Development Officer.

Read the full article →

Zuckerberg: ‘Code Wins Arguments’

February 2, 2012

In Facebook’s regulatory filing Wednesday for an initial public offering of stock, CEO Mark Zuckerberg included a letter to potential investors about the company’s thinking. He described it as a social mission to make the world more open and connected. He also discussed Facebook’s approach to culture and management: “As part of building a strong company, we work hard at making Facebook the best place for great people to have a big impact on the world and learn from other great people. We have cultivated a unique culture and management approach that we call the Hacker Way. “The word ‘hacker’ has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers. In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done. Like most things, it can be used for good or bad, but the vast majority of hackers I’ve met tend to be idealistic people who want to have a positive impact on the world. “The Hacker Way is an approach to building that involves continuous improvement and iteration. Hackers believe that something can always be better, and that nothing is ever complete. They just have to go fix it — often in the face of people who say it’s impossible or are content with the status quo. “Hackers try to build the best services over the long term by quickly releasing and learning from smaller iterations rather than trying to get everything right all at once. To support this, we have built a testing framework that at any given time can try out thousands of versions of Facebook. We have the words ‘Done is better than perfect’ painted on our walls to remind ourselves to always keep shipping. “Hacking is also an inherently hands-on and active discipline. Instead of debating for days whether a new idea is possible or what the best way to build something is, hackers would rather just prototype something and see what works. There’s a hacker mantra that you’ll hear a lot around Facebook offices: ‘Code wins arguments.’ “Hacker culture is also extremely open and meritocratic. Hackers believe that the best idea and implementation should always win — not the person who is best at lobbying for an idea or the person who manages the most people. “To encourage this approach, every few months we have a hackathon, where everyone builds prototypes for new ideas they have. At the end, the whole team gets together and looks at everything that has been built. Many of our most successful products came out of hackathons, including Timeline, chat, video, our mobile development framework and some of our most important infrastructure like the HipHop compiler. “To make sure all our engineers share this approach, we require all new engineers — even managers whose primary job will not be to write code — to go through a program called Bootcamp where they learn our codebase, our tools and our approach. There are a lot of folks in the industry who manage engineers and don’t want to code themselves, but the type of hands-on people we’re looking for are willing and able to go through Bootcamp.”

Read the full article →

Mark Zuckerberg’s Letter To Investors

February 1, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Facebook filed papers on Wednesday to raise at least $5 billion in one of the most hotly anticipated IPOs of the decade. Below is the letter from Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to prospective investors: Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected. We think it’s important that everyone who invests in Facebook understands what this mission means to us, how we make decisions and why we do the things we do. I will try to outline our approach in this letter. At Facebook, we’re inspired by technologies that have revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television – by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice. They encouraged progress. They changed the way society was organized. They brought us closer together. Today, our society has reached another tipping point. We live at a moment when the majority of people in the world have access to the internet or mobile phones – the raw tools necessary to start sharing what they’re thinking, feeling and doing with whomever they want. Facebook aspires to build the services that give people the power to share and help them once again transform many of our core institutions and industries. There is a huge need and a huge opportunity to get everyone in the world connected, to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future. The scale of the technology and infrastructure that must be built is unprecedented, and we believe this is the most important problem we can focus on. We hope to strengthen how people relate to each other. Even if our mission sounds big, it starts small – with the relationship between two people. Personal relationships are the fundamental unit of our society. Relationships are how we discover new ideas, understand our world and ultimately derive long-term happiness. At Facebook, we build tools to help people connect with the people they want and share what they want, and by doing this we are extending people’s capacity to build and maintain relationships. People sharing more – even if just with their close friends or families – creates a more open culture and leads to a better understanding of the lives and perspectives of others. We believe that this creates a greater number of stronger relationships between people, and that it helps people get exposed to a greater number of diverse perspectives. By helping people form these connections, we hope to rewire the way people spread and consume information. We think the world’s information infrastructure should resemble the social graph – a network built from the bottom up or peer-to-peer, rather than the monolithic, top-down structure that has existed to date. We also believe that giving people control over what they share is a fundamental principle of this rewiring. We have already helped more than 800 million people map out more than 100 billion connections so far, and our goal is to help this rewiring accelerate. We hope to improve how people connect to businesses and the economy. We think a more open and connected world will help create a stronger economy with more authentic businesses that build better products and services. As people share more, they have access to more opinions from the people they trust about the products and services they use. This makes it easier to discover the best products and improve the quality and efficiency of their lives. One result of making it easier to find better products is that businesses will be rewarded for building better products – ones that are personalized and designed around people. We have found that products that are “social by design” tend to be more engaging than their traditional counterparts, and we look forward to seeing more of the world’s products move in this direction. Our developer platform has already enabled hundreds of thousands of businesses to build higher-quality and more social products. We have seen disruptive new approaches in industries like games, music and news, and we expect to see similar disruption in more industries by new approaches that are social by design. In addition to building better products, a more open world will also encourage businesses to engage with their customers directly and authentically. More than four million businesses have Pages on Facebook that they use to have a dialogue with their customers. We expect this trend to grow as well. We hope to change how people relate to their governments and social institutions. We believe building tools to help people share can bring a more honest and transparent dialogue around government that could lead to more direct empowerment of people, more accountability for officials and better solutions to some of the biggest problems of our time. By giving people the power to share, we are starting to see people make their voices heard on a different scale from what has historically been possible. These voices will increase in number and volume. They cannot be ignored. Over time, we expect governments will become more responsive to issues and concerns raised directly by all their people rather than through intermediaries controlled by a select few. Through this process, we believe that leaders will emerge across all countries who are pro-internet and fight for the rights of their people, including the right to share what they want and the right to access all information that people want to share with them. Finally, as more of the economy moves towards higher-quality products that are personalized, we also expect to see the emergence of new services that are social by design to address the large worldwide problems we face in job creation, education and health care. We look forward to doing what we can to help this progress. Our Mission and Our Business As I said above, Facebook was not originally founded to be a company. We’ve always cared primarily about our social mission, the services we’re building and the people who use them. This is a different approach for a public company to take, so I want to explain why I think it works. I started off by writing the first version of Facebook myself because it was something I wanted to exist. Since then, most of the ideas and code that have gone into Facebook have come from the great people we’ve attracted to our team. Most great people care primarily about building and being a part of great things, but they also want to make money. Through the process of building a team – and also building a developer community, advertising market and investor base – I’ve developed a deep appreciation for how building a strong company with a strong economic engine and strong growth can be the best way to align many people to solve important problems. Simply put: we don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services. And we think this is a good way to build something. These days I think more and more people want to use services from companies that believe in something beyond simply maximizing profits. By focusing on our mission and building great services, we believe we will create the most value for our shareholders and partners over the long term – and this in turn will enable us to keep attracting the best people and building more great services. We don’t wake up in the morning with the primary goal of making money, but we understand that the best way to achieve our mission is to build a strong and valuable company. This is how we think about our IPO as well. We’re going public for our employees and our investors. We made a commitment to them when we gave them equity that we’d work hard to make it worth a lot and make it liquid, and this IPO is fulfilling our commitment. As we become a public company, we’re making a similar commitment to our new investors and we will work just as hard to fulfill it. The Hacker Way As part of building a strong company, we work hard at making Facebook the best place for great people to have a big impact on the world and learn from other great people. We have cultivated a unique culture and management approach that we call the Hacker Way. The word “hacker” has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers. In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done. Like most things, it can be used for good or bad, but the vast majority of hackers I’ve met tend to be idealistic people who want to have a positive impact on the world. The Hacker Way is an approach to building that involves continuous improvement and iteration. Hackers believe that something can always be better, and that nothing is ever complete. They just have to go fix it – often in the face of people who say it’s impossible or are content with the status quo. Hackers try to build the best services over the long term by quickly releasing and learning from smaller iterations rather than trying to get everything right all at once. To support this, we have built a testing framework that at any given time can try out thousands of versions of Facebook. We have the words “Done is better than perfect” painted on our walls to remind ourselves to always keep shipping. Hacking is also an inherently hands-on and active discipline. Instead of debating for days whether a new idea is possible or what the best way to build something is, hackers would rather just prototype something and see what works. There’s a hacker mantra that you’ll hear a lot around Facebook offices: “Code wins arguments.” Hacker culture is also extremely open and meritocratic. Hackers believe that the best idea and implementation should always win – not the person who is best at lobbying for an idea or the person who manages the most people. To encourage this approach, every few months we have a hackathon, where everyone builds prototypes for new ideas they have. At the end, the whole team gets together and looks at everything that has been built. Many of our most successful products came out of hackathons, including Timeline, chat, video, our mobile development framework and some of our most important infrastructure like the HipHop compiler. To make sure all our engineers share this approach, we require all new engineers – even managers whose primary job will not be to write code – to go through a program called Bootcamp where they learn our codebase, our tools and our approach. There are a lot of folks in the industry who manage engineers and don’t want to code themselves, but the type of hands-on people we’re looking for are willing and able to go through Bootcamp. The examples above all relate to engineering, but we have distilled these principles into five core values for how we run Facebook: Focus on Impact If we want to have the biggest impact, the best way to do this is to make sure we always focus on solving the most important problems. It sounds simple, but we think most companies do this poorly and waste a lot of time. We expect everyone at Facebook to be good at finding the biggest problems to work on. Move Fast Moving fast enables us to build more things and learn faster. However, as most companies grow, they slow down too much because they’re more afraid of making mistakes than they are of losing opportunities by moving too slowly. We have a saying: “Move fast and break things.” The idea is that if you never break anything, you’re probably not moving fast enough. Be Bold Building great things means taking risks. This can be scary and prevents most companies from doing the bold things they should. However, in a world that’s changing so quickly, you’re guaranteed to fail if you don’t take any risks. We have another saying: “The riskiest thing is to take no risks.” We encourage everyone to make bold decisions, even if that means being wrong some of the time. Be Open We believe that a more open world is a better world because people with more information can make better decisions and have a greater impact. That goes for running our company as well. We work hard to make sure everyone at Facebook has access to as much information as possible about every part of the company so they can make the best decisions and have the greatest impact. Build Social Value Once again, Facebook exists to make the world more open and connected, and not just to build a company. We expect everyone at Facebook to focus every day on how to build real value for the world in everything they do. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. We believe that we have an opportunity to have an important impact on the world and build a lasting company in the process. I look forward to building something great together. Mark Zuckerberg (Reporting By Gerry Shih; Editing by Gary Hill)

Read the full article →

Retaining Employees: 5 Things You Need To Know

February 1, 2012

Even when the economy is tough — and maybe especially then — it’s never a bad idea to show your employees appreciation. You may have a few knuckleheads you wouldn’t be sorry to see go, were they to walk out, but the last thing you need is your best employees to leave you high and dry. And they will, if you take them for granted. After all, especially in a world in which retiring with a gold watch is increasingly a fantasy, why should talented employees stick around if they aren’t being treated like a best employee should be? It can obviously cost thousands of dollars to train a new employee, depending on the position, especially taking into account all the money a company can lose when its talent isn’t around to land new accounts, maintain quality control and provide superior customer service. (There are a lot of employee turnover calculators online to prove this point, like this one . So if you want to keep your employees happy, in both good and bad times, here are five things you need to know. 1. Challenge your employees. You don’t want to overwhelm them, but you shouldn’t bore them either. Adam Neary, CEO of Profitably.com , a website that helps businesses better plan, manage and execute their finances, says, “I believe people do their best when the work they are doing is right in the arc between where they’re coming from and where they want to go.” Neary clarifies: “Look at Jason Purtorti, the lead designer from Mint. He was a hurricane of awesome and had no interest in leaving while they were in the throes of it all. It had to do with stretching him from where he was coming from as an agency guy and an independent designer into actually owning a brand and a visual aesthetic. It was a growth role for him, but not unreachable. And it led to him being able to take a role like ‘Designer in Residence’ at Bessemer and then a co-founder of Votizen. If, however, you wanted to get Jason to be your designer and play the role he played at Mint after Mint, it wouldn’t make sense. And even if you convinced him short term, you’d lose him.” 2. Pay your employees. If at all possible, “pay them more than they think they are worth,” suggests Gerry Patnode, assistant professor of management and marketing at York College of Pennsylvania and a former business owner for 23 years. But if you can’t pay a high salary, keep in mind, says Chip Manning, director of the Babson Center for Global Commerce , that “benefits, such as family time and flexible work schedules, can have more value to the employee rather than additional cash.” Pay your employees compliments. True, if all you are is complimentary, that won’t go too far forever, but it is important. The key here is respect, says Manning. Respect can be shown via money, valuing an employee’s time and simply making it clear that you value your staff by, yes, complimenting them for their hard work. Or show them that you realize there’s more to them than their job. The SuperGroup , based in Atlanta, is a small, digital interactive shop, that boasts high employee retention, probably due to a program which allows significant personal use on company time to be spent doing anything creative, like penning a novel or screenplay, learning to paint or taking music lessons. 3. Don’t hover. This should be obvious, but if it was, we wouldn’t have books out there like “My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement Survival Guide” by Harry Chambers or “Creating Passion-Driven Teams: How to Stop Micromanaging and Motivate People to Top Performance” by Dan Bobinski. Remember, if you hired employees because they’re talented, creative and have a unique set of skills and intelligence, if you constrain them too much and make them do their work exactly like you would do it if you were in their position, you risk losing the very qualities that you hired them for in the first place. 4. Make the work environment as work-friendly as possible. It’s not all about the employees, exactly. Look in the mirror and at your environment. Money is an important motivator, but so is going into a workspace that lacks office politics and general tension. Is the office everyone works in kind of a dump? How is the heating and cooling system in your office, store or building? Would you work here if you were an employee of yours? All important questions to ask. 5. Employees need to get something out of their job. If you aren’t giving or can’t give your employees some sort of ownership in the company — whether stock, or bonuses when the company is doing better — you need to, at the bare minimum, offer your employees as much career growth as possible. Employees know that, any day, theoretically, no matter how good of a job they’re doing, they could be kicked to the curb. Understanding that tends to make employees very acutely tuned in to improving their hireability. Employees tend to want to know that if that day comes and their services aren’t needed any longer, they’re still going to be in demand because they’ve been working with the most cutting-edge equipment in the industry or taking yearly seminars. It may seem counterproductive to help prepare an employee for a better job, but the more you help an employee grow and evolve so they can get a better job, the better the odds that they’re going to realize that the better job is the one they have.

Read the full article →

MF Global Collapse Triggers Regulator To Consider Changing Rules

February 1, 2012

* CFTC review of oversight in response to MF Global collapse * Some changes may require rule-making, action from Congress * MF a “huge broken window” in CFTC’s neighborhood-O’Malia By Christopher Doering WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) – The head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has ordered an extensive review of how futures brokerages are regulated, following the collapse of MF Global three months ago, a CFTC official told Reuters on Wednesday. CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler ordered the review after questions emerged about whether the CFTC or exchange-operator CME Group, whose self-regulatory arm served as MF Global’s front-line regulator, could have done more to prevent the firm’s collapse and safeguard customer money. MF Global had nearly a half dozen regulators policing various parts of the firm, but no single regulator was responsible for the whole company. Gensler has directed the agency’s Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight to find ways to bolster agency regulations for how it oversees and what it requires from self-regulatory organizations and futures commission merchants such as MF Global, the official told Reuters. The review includes changes to the CFTC’s own internal policies and procedures and possible calls for congressional action. It is not clear what the specific recommendations will say. “There is a whole package of recommendations that staff has drafted at the direction of the chairman to bolster our current regulations,” said the CFTC official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “I think, absolutely, I would say these are a direct response” to MF Global, the individual said. A CFTC spokesman could not be reached for comment. MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31 after investors and customers became rattled over the firm’s $6.3 billion bet on European sovereign debt. Investigators are still trying to find more than $600 million in missing customer money. A House Financial Services subcommittee is holding a hearing on Thursday with Michael Roseman, the former chief risk officer who is said to have raised red flags about aggressive trading bets at MF Global, and with representatives from the ratings agencies. Under the current regulatory system, the CFTC does not examine any futures commission merchants such as MF Global itself and instead is reliant on self-regulatory organizations such as CME to oversee them. Gensler has said it is not an ideal system. The CME has since defended the SRO model. Only a few days before MF Global’s bankruptcy, CME examiners verified that MF Global’s segregated customer fund account was overcollateralized. CME has since said that MF Global duped its examiners. Some CFTC officials have heavily criticized the SRO model. “I think we’ve gone too far in allowing the exchanges to be so self-regulatory that it’s obfuscated the need for the cop to be on the beat all the time,” Bart Chilton, a Democratic commissioner at the CFTC, said in December. THREE-PART REVIEW As trading volumes have soared during the last decade, federal regulators eased direct oversight of the industry and handed more regulatory powers to the major exchanges. A look at the recent history of self-regulation shows the government repeatedly raised concerns about the resources the major exchanges dedicate to market oversight, while the CFTC also experienced staff cutbacks and retreated from hands-on policing. The CFTC changes being proposed would be divided into three groups. The first batch would include changes to internal policies and procedures, and would most likely not be made public. A second group would involve changes to CFTC rules, and would need to be put out for public comment. The third group would result in changes to the law and would require action from Congress. It was not clear what the legislative proposal may include, but Gensler has said the CFTC simply does not have the budget or staff to directly examine futures brokerages. Congress controls the CFTC’s budget. Gensler has recused himself from the CFTC’s probe into MF Global, but has been involved in reform efforts. Gensler and Jon Corzine, who resigned as chief executive of MF Global, worked together at Goldman Sachs Group Inc in the 1990s. The agency’s own commissioners and lawmakers such as Pat Roberts, the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC, have called for reforms, including stronger protections for customer funds. The CFTC also recently concluded an industry-wide spot check of major futures brokerages, and did not find any material breaches of customer fund protections. Scott O’Malia, a Republican commissioner, said on Tuesday that more needs to be done to restore public confidence, such as routine spot checks by the CFTC to make sure firms similar to MF Global are properly segregating customer accounts. “The MF Global collapse was a huge broken window in the Commission’s neighborhood. To restore public confidence and to deter future violations of the segregation requirement, the Commission has taken action. It needs to continue taking action,” he said. (Reporting By Christopher Doering; Additional reporting by Philip Shishkin; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Read the full article →

After Oakland Street Battle, Occupy Movement Split Over Confrontational Tactics

February 1, 2012

By Laird Harrison OAKLAND, Calif., Feb 1 (Reuters) – When anti-Wall Street protesters set out to take over Oakland’s shuttered convention center on Saturday, they left no doubt about the reception they expected. Scores concealed their faces with bandanas, and dozens carried shields, some painted with anarchist symbols. What happened next — a 10-hour street battle in which demonstrators and police pelted each other with tear gas canisters, smoke grenades and other projectiles — has intensified a debate within the Occupy Wall Street movement over what forms of confrontation it should embrace. Activists calling for greater equality in income and tighter regulation of financial institutions have clashed with police across the country since September, usually while advocating non-violence. But a series of conflicts with police in Oakland have stood out as the most violent, with one activist, Iraq war veteran Scott Olsen, suffering a brain injury on Oct. 25. Protesters on Saturday said they were trying to establish a new headquarters and community center to take the place of the tent camp police dismantled at Frank Ogawa Plaza in front of City Hall last fall. Police lined up on street corners and in front of the convention center to thwart the would-be occupiers. Objects began flying through the air as soon as demonstrators tore down a section of chain-link fence in front of the building. “Of all the (anti-Wall Street) marches and rallies in the city of Oakland, this has been the most violent and hostile to the police,” said Oakland Police Department spokeswoman Johnna Watson. Some 400 protesters were arrested, and several police officers and demonstrators were injured. “While we respect every citizen’s right to protest peacefully, we will not tolerate individuals who come to Oakland with an organized strategy to riot, clash with police officers, vandalize property and wreak havoc upon the city,” Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley said in a statement. Demonstrators accused the police of beating them with batons and of trapping them between police lines, then arresting them for supposedly disobeying orders to disperse. People in the San Francisco Bay Area appeared to be turned off by Occupy’s tactics on Saturday, according to an opinion poll by SurveyUSA. Of 500 people surveyed on Sunday, 26 percent said they had once supported the Occupy movement and now do not. Added to 31 percent who said they always opposed the movement, the poll suggests a majority of public opinion opposes the group. Some leaders within the movement were distancing themselves from tactics employed by fellow occupiers on Saturday. “A lot of conversation is coming out of that, a lot of self-reflection,” said Nichola Torbett, a self-described devout Christian who took part in the first Occupy Oakland organizing meetings in September. Torbett said she has participated in nearly every major Occupy Oakland event and was arrested when police cleared out a protest encampment on Nov. 15. But she stayed away from the march on Saturday. “It was organized by a very militant anarchist segment of the movement,” she said. “I support the idea of taking a building, especially for housing those who don’t have housing. But I don’t support it with the kind of triumphal attitude I saw expressed.” In November, following a day of mostly peaceful Occupy Oakland rallies that gave way to a night of unrest and over 100 arrests, some activists joined city officials in blaming small bands of agitators who they said provoked police. Mike King, an organizer of the movement’s effort to shut down West Coast ports on Dec. 12, stayed away on Saturday because of “personal obligations.” He defended the demonstrators’ attempt to take over a building but said he prefers to devote his energy to building relationships with labor leaders. Without condemning the attempt to occupy the convention center, labor leaders kept a low profile during the demonstration and its aftermath. Representatives for the Service Employees International Union, which helped organize Occupy rallies in a number of cities, did not return repeated calls seeking comment, nor did the Alameda Labor Council nor the California Teachers Association. The California Nurses Association, which has staffed medical stations during previous Occupy Oakland marches, had no official presence at the demonstration Saturday, said spokesman Chuck Idelson. “We don’t support violence no matter who is doing it,” he said. Still, many occupiers defend Saturday’s action. Shake Anderson, who took part in the march, acknowledged, “it could have been better organized” but insisted the goal was worthy. City officials are unable or unwilling to help the homeless, hungry and unemployed, he said. Occupy Oakland was meeting those needs in its camp at Frank Ogawa Plaza until it was evicted by the police, he said. “We need a space so we can feed each other and educate each other,” he said. “Let us have our big house and leave us alone.” (Editing by Steve Gorman and Daniel Trotta)

Read the full article →

US federal govt deficit expected to reach USD1.1tr in 2012

February 1, 2012

(MENAFN) The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that in the 2012 fiscal year, the federal government would be expected to run a budget deficit of nearly USD1.1 trillion, reported Xinhua …

Read the full article →

A First-Of-Its Kind Summit For Entrepreneurs

February 1, 2012

In an effort to promote mentorship and foster an ongoing dialogue about the state of entrepreneurship, HuffPost Small Business and Virgin Unite will join together this week for a first-of-its-kind summit at the Branson Centre of Entrepreneurship in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Twelve members of the HuffPost Small Business Board of Directors , along with 13 entrepreneurs from the Branson Centre , will convene starting on Thursday for three days of mentoring, roundtable discussions and networking with members of the Jamaican entrepreneurial community. The event marks the kickoff of the Branson Centre’s pilot mentoring program, an idea that first took shape during the grand opening in September . “The chance to have a group of established and inspirational entrepreneurs willing to share their stories with our own entrepreneurs who are just starting out on their journeys, to offer insights on the development of our mentorship model and to interact with our local community is a great privilege for us and we want to ensure the experience is both intellectually stimulating — and a whole lot of fun!” said Lisa Lake, chief development officer of the Branson Centre. For members of the HuffPost Small Business Board of Directors, which includes Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson , the summit marks an opportunity to give back to their fellow entrepreneurs, while tapping one another’s knowledge and experience for their own ventures. “One of the greatest things about entrepreneurs is how much they love to help one another learn and grow,” said Rod Kurtz, executive editor of HuffPost Small Business. “So we thought, what better way to demonstrate this than by bringing our Board of Directors down to Montego Bay and work with the rising entrepreneurial stars at the Branson Centre. Richard and the whole Virgin Unite team have been big supporters of ours and we’re thrilled to show our support for all the great work happening at the Branson Centre.” Attendees from the HuffPost Board of Directors will include: Rod Kurtz , Executive Editor, HuffPost Small Business Clint Greenleaf , Founder and CEO, Greenleaf Book Group Warren Brown , Founder, CakeLove and Love Cafe Danielle Snyder , Co-Founder, DANNIJO Jodie Snyder , Co-Founder, DANNIJO Rob Adams , Director, Texas Venture Labs at the University of Texas Lawrence Gelburd , Lecturer, The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania Rieva Lesonsky , Founder and CEO, GrowBiz Media Tate Chalk , Founder and CEO, Nfinity Elizabeth Busch , Co-Founder, The Event Studio Beckie Jankiewicz , Co-Founder, The Event Studio Anne Frey-Mott , Co-Founder, The Event Studio Attendees from the Branson Centre will include: Lisa Lake, Chief Development Officer, Branson Centre of Entrepreneurship – Caribbean Clara Maguire, Virgin Unite Patrick Casserly, Director, Branson Centre of Entrepreneurship Edris Whyte, Founder, StudyInJamaica.com Carolyn Yapp, Founder, NyloraC Bianca Bartley, Founder, Peace-is of Bianca Robyn Fox, Founder, Mount Edge Guest House, Food Basket and EITS Cafe Simone Bell, Founder, Ideatrade Andrew Khan, Founder, Moringa Labs Joan Webley, Founder, Nanook Enterprises Joshua Bailey, Founder, The Swim Place Leanne Talbot, Founder, Island Cycle Kevin Earle, Founder, KRL Supplies Alecia James, Founder, Signature Cakes Edward-Marshall Case, Founder, Edward Case Construction Concepts Andrew Moss, Founder, Seascape Caribbean

Read the full article →

Detroit Family Relieved To Learn It Won’t Be Evicted

January 31, 2012

A Detroit husband and wife who have spent months worrying that they might be evicted from their home of 22 years received word on Tuesday morning and learned they will be able to stay. William and Bertha Garrett, who have lived on Pierson Street in Detroit for more than two decades, have been fighting their bank foreclosure for more than a year . They attempted to buy back their home with no success — until this week, they said. Two weeks ago the couple got formal notice of an eviction. On Monday, a contractor attempted to place a dumpster on the Garrett property, a step required before an eviction can take place, according to city code. But also on Monday, members of Moratorium Now, Occupy Detroit and Homes Before Banks rallied at the Detroit office of the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. , the trustee of the Garretts’ mortgage. The family’s supporters also blocked the contractor from placing the dumpster. On Tuesday morning a representative of Statebridge Co., a servicer for their mortgage, called the family to say the company would accept their offer of $12,000 to buy back their home, said the Garretts’ daughter, Michele Finley. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. has an administrative role as trustee of the mortgage but it is unable to make decisions about the property, said Kevin Heine, a spokesman for the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. Statebridge Co. and IA Services are the servicers for the mortgage, Heine said. Statebridge did not return a request for comment and IA declined to comment on the Pierson Street property. The Garretts, with the help of several of their children, have the $12,000 ready to buy back their home. The family is waiting for the delivery of a purchase agreement. “I’m so happy,” Finley said. “But until I see a signed piece of paper saying my parents have a house, I won’t believe it.” Finley said she is grateful for the support her family received from community members and plans to pay it forward and work with others facing foreclosure. “My verbal promise [to them] is, I’m in this for the long haul,” she said. “I did this for my parents, it wasn’t for anyone else. But what I have seen, the stories I have heard … [foreclosure] is an epidemic.” When U.S. state Rep. Hansen Clarke, who represents Detroit, heard of the Garretts’ situation, an office staffer reached out to the family. “We were determined to do anything we could to let them stay in the house,” said Winifred Money, who works in Clarke’s Detroit office. By the time Money called, the Garretts already knew that they wouldn’t be evicted. But Money is glad the issue was brought to the forefront. “Most of our calls are on foreclosure. There’s not a day that goes by that a new person isn’t calling,” she said.

Read the full article →

Amazon’s Net Income Dropped Sharply

January 31, 2012

NEW YORK — Shoppers spent more money online this holiday season than ever before, and yet, Amazon _the world’s largest Internet retailer_ failed to meet Wall Street’s sales expectations with its latest financial results. In a surprise, the company’s revenue fell nearly $1 billion short of Wall Street’s expectations, even as it grew 35 percent from a year earlier. The quarter included Amazon’s headline-grabbing November launch of the Kindle Fire, its answer to Apple’s iPad. Its net income also fell sharply and its guidance for the current quarter was disappointing. Investors punished the stock. Amazon’s shares dropped $17.44, or 9 percent, to $177 in after-hours trading on Tuesday following the earnings announcement. Though revenue grew 35 percent to $17.4 billion, analysts expected the holidays to lift sales to $18.3 billion, according to FactSet. Even so, BGC Financial analyst Colin Gillis said the company “didn’t really give a good answer” as to why its revenue fell short of expectations. And while its earnings were stronger than expected, he said the company has been “more revenue driven than earnings driven.” That explains why investors focused on the company’s sales growth. With a stock valued as high as Amazon’s, they are looking for any sign of a slowdown as an excuse to sell. Meanwhile, Amazon’s expenses are increasing. Operating expenses grew 38 percent to $17.2 billion. The company has been investing heavily in new sales-fulfillment centers. Investments such as these cut into profits during all of last year. Seattle-based Amazon.com Inc. said that its net income was $177 million, or 38 cents per share, in the three months that ended Dec. 31. That’s down 57 percent from $416 million, or 91 cents per share, a year earlier. Earnings dropped, the company said, as it continued to invest in sales fulfillment centers and increased its workforce by 67 percent from a year earlier. For the current quarter, Amazon is forecasting $12 billion to $13.4 billion in revenue. Analysts were expecting $13.42 billion. The company also said it may record an operating loss for the quarter. Its outlook was in the range of a loss of $200 million to a profit of $100 million for the three months ending in March. Analysts had been worried about Amazon’s profit margins because of the heavy operating expenses, but they had expected stronger revenue growth. Although the company’s earnings of 38 cents a share were well above Wall Street expectations of 17 cents, investors seemed to focus on the bad news elsewhere. Amazon said sales of its Kindle tablet computers and e-reader gadgets nearly tripled compared with the final quarter of 2010. The company did not give exact sales numbers for the devices. The Kindle Fire, Amazon’s $199 tablet, went on sale in November. The company sees the Kindle as a way to drive sales of digital content such as e-books, music, movies and apps. CEO Jeff Bezos said the Kindle was Amazon’s bestselling product during the holiday season in both the U.S. and Europe. Sales at Amazon’s media business, which includes books, DVDs, and content consumed on the Kindle, grew 15 percent to $6 billion. Sales from electronics and other general merchandise, which includes the Kindle devices, jumped 48 percent to $10.9 billion. The company grew its employee base 67 percent from a year earlier, ending the year with 56,200 full-time and part-time workers. Chief Financial Officer Tom Szkutak said the job additions were in operations and customer service to support Amazon’s growth. For all of 2011, Amazon earned $631 million, down from $1.15 billion a year earlier. Revenue grew to $48.1 billion from $34.2 billion. Amazon’s stock dropped $17.44, or 9 percent, to $177 in after-hours trading following the earnings announcement.

Read the full article →

Report: Government Bailout To See Loss Worth Billions

January 31, 2012

WASHINGTON — A new report says the government’s financial bailout program will see a $23 billion loss in the year that ended Sept. 30, compared with a $37 billion gain on taxpayers’ investment the year before. The Congressional Budget Office made the prediction in its report issued Tuesday on the federal budget. The expected loss is mainly due to the drop in the stock prices of General Motors and insurer American International Group, in which the government still holds big stakes. AIG shares fell from around $40 to about $25 over the past year; GM shares fell from around $35 to $24. Amid the 2008 financial crisis, Congress authorized spending $700 billion on the bailout. About $413 billion was lent. So far, the government has recovered around $318 billion.

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: Whatever Happened to Occupy Wall Street?

January 31, 2012

Gone but not forgotten. Occupy Wall Street has disappeared from Zuccotti Park, save for occasional gatherings of shivering souls watched over by yellow-jacketed police, but it lingers on the edge of consciousness, in the now embedded cliché “we are the 99%” and, apparently in Davos, where all things go to warm their hands on the gas-fed embers of 1% capitalism. Morgan Stanley’s Stephen Roach lays out in today’s Financial Times a final session at Davos that allowed a branch of the local Occupy movement to do their thing. As Roach himself says, “Friday’s Open Forum, in an effort to take the debate from the glitterati to the real people” featured the topic “remodeling capitalism” and was a “chance to open this debate to the seething masses.” Note a few assumptions here. First, glitterati are not real people, which may well be true — I wouldn’t know. Second, the “so-called Occupy Community” represented “the seething masses.” This, of course, is the argument made by the Occupy community, embodied in the 99% slogan. But based on their numbers, on polls and on anecdotal evidence, they are a small segment of the overall population at large. Lastly, why do masses always seethe? Roach’s description of this affair sounds like something out of the ’60s. The affair begins in chaos, with Occupy “agitators” stationed throughout the room leading chants. The panel itself is an mélange of various points of view. Roach, as a Wall Street representative, is hissed. An hour-long discussion ensues. Roach comes to accept “a reasonable suggestion” on the need to balance growth and stability. And just before he escapes in the night, “Maria,” an Occupy representative, offers her views: “The aim of Occupy is to think for yourself. We don’t focus on solutions. We want to change the process of finding solutions.” That sentiment jives with what we know about the thrust of OWS at Zuccotti Park. It also sums up the challenges of the movement. Yes, it has achieved a certain amount of celebrity; and its sloganeering has been effective. But what has it become? OWS’s notion of creating a political transformation — “We want to change the process of finding solutions” — is rooted in place, in physical proximity, like Athenian democracy. This is paradoxical, given its expert use of social media for drawing crowds, and self-limiting. Without a physical space, an encampment, where general assemblies can be held and the interminable process of achieving democratic consensus reached, this is just another protest movement, albeit one with a sense of humor and a talent for slick slogans. This explains, I think, OWS’s continuing attempts to find a new home, first in the empty lot owned by Trinity Church, then this weekend, in the cozy confines of Washington Square Park, with New York University around it like a very expensive muffler. There’s something bittersweet about this, with its efforts to replicate Zuccotti without turning the public against them. As The Wall Street Journal writes : “Organizers said they hoped demonstrations like Sunday would improve the movement’s public image, a sentiment that comes just a day after protesters in Oakland clashed with police and more than 300 people were arrested.” Gordon Crovitz in the WSJ also took up the plight of OWS but from a more critical perspective. He argues that OWS violated property rights and as long as municipalities and the police enforce those rights, the movement will fade. He may be right; he may be wrong. (Crovitz blames “liberal city politicians” in New York for letting the movement take root. It’s a sign of how conservative the Republican Party has become that the moderate Bloomberg administration could be called “liberal.”) Crovitz argues that OWS was essentially an “AstroTurf” movement, started by AdBusters, and thus, in a sense, lacking authenticity, legitimacy, roots in anything real. Like Roach’s “real people” we now get to tangle with what’s real or not. Is the Tea Party, which also has AstroTurf roots, real? Well, its votes in the 2010 elections were certainly real; and Sarah Palin sold a ton of books to someone real. And one could say that OWS, whether its genesis was AstroTurf or not, has had “real” consequence. President Obama is taking a decidedly more aggressive populist stand than before OWS. And even the Republican primary battle between Romney and Gingrich features issues like inequality, private equity and Wall Street articulated by OWS — or by interpreters of OWS in the punditocracy. In fact, it doesn’t matter. Nearly every political movement that makes an impact began with an organizer. The notion of a true grassroots movement is mostly a myth (historically, many of them sprang from the political parties). That said AstroTurf movements couldn’t sustain themselves unless troops from the grass roots sign up for duty. The Tea Party achieved that; for a few months, the Occupy movements did as well. The real question, which returns us to the importance of “place,” is whether it will be self-sustaining come the spring. That’s an open question. The emphasis on fundamental political transformation is stirring but, again, decidedly self-limiting. The decision to press specific issues smacks of politics as usual. Who wants to wrestle with the kind of hard economic issues Roach laid out in his Davos remarks: inequality, global income disparities and growth? Besides, the greatest threat to OWS is that it becomes familiar and boring: toward the end of the Zuccotti phase, that, plus a certain loss of patience in a group that was increasingly viewed as parasitic, began to limit the tolerance of the surrounding community toward the affair. The real challenge for the OWS core group is to devise a fresh and inspiring new shtick — a new Zuccotti or effective slogans that paper over the underlying incoherence of the movement — knowing full well that to resort to public spaces is now probably off the table. To get anything done, to get any attention (to “occupy” the media), OWS needs to mobilize large numbers, and that will depend in part upon the economic situation with its large numbers of unemployed and indebted young folks. How they’ll pull that off will be fascinating to watch. One thing to keep in mind: The one solution to the fear of becoming boring and irrelevant is to become more aggressive, to confront the authorities more brazenly. That, however, has nothing to do with democratic transformation and consensus and will lose the still-accepting nature of the larger community. Meanwhile, media and public attention will be increasingly focused on a presidential election. OWS is, in a sense, running for office just as hard as Gingrich, Romney and Obama. But the task is far more difficult. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal magazine.

Read the full article →

CBO: Government Healthcare Spending To More Than Double By 2022

January 31, 2012

* Spending to more than double by 2022 * Annual rise seen at 8 pct, to reach 7.3 percent of GDP By David Morgan WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) – U.S. government spending for Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs will more than double over the next decade to $1.8 trillion, or 7.3 percent of the country’s total economic output, congressional researchers said on Tuesday. In its annual budget and economic outlook, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that even under its most conservative projections, healthcare spending would rise by 8 percent a year from 2012 to 2022, mainly as a result of an aging U.S. population and rising treatment costs. It will continue to be a key driver of the U.S. budget deficit. Medicare, the federal healthcare program for the elderly, accounts for about half the projected growth, with Medicaid at roughly one-third and the remainder attributed to new federal subsidies to help lower income Americans purchase insurance under President Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare overhaul. Spending is expected to dip this year to $847 billion, from $856 billion in 2011, because extra federal money to help cash-strapped states pay for Medicaid ended last July. The healthcare program for the poor, Medicaid is jointly funded by federal and state governments. But researchers warned that the longer term prospects for rising healthcare spending could have dire consequences for the U.S. deficit when combined with the cost of Social Security, if current revenue levels remain unchanged. “The resulting deficits will increase federal debt to unsupportable levels,” the CBO report said. “To prevent that outcome, policymakers will have to substantially restrain the growth of spending for those programs, raise revenues above their historical share of GDP, or pursue some combination of those two approaches.” The data present the latest sobering news for Obama and lawmakers in Congress, who have spent months wrangling over how best to reduce a federal deficit that is expected to hover above $1 trillion in 2012 for the fourth year in a row. The report is likely to feature prominently in the 2012 presidential campaign, where Republicans Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are vying for the support of fiscal conservatives to win the party nomination and face Obama in the November general election. CBO also cited the cost of granting physicians a long-term reprieve from a Medicare reimbursement mechanism that is scheduled to impose a 27 percent pay cut on doctors in March. The report said keeping physician payments at current levels through 2022 would cost the federal government $316 billion, up from last year’s CBO estimate of $290 billion. Lawmakers in Congress are trying to reach a deal on a one- or two-year “doc fix” under Medicare. Foregoing reduced payment rates would cost the government $9 billion in 2012 and $19 billion 2013. The charge would rise sharply in later years to $47 billion in 2022 and $15 billion in additional debt service costs. (Editing by Michele Gershberg and Eric Beech)

Read the full article →

Golden Star Resources Names Roger Palmer Chief Financial Officer, Replacing John Labate

January 31, 2012

DENVER, CO–(Marketwire – Jan 31, 2012) – Golden Star Resources Ltd. ( NYSE Amex : GSS ) ( TSX : GSC ) ( GHANA : GSR ) (“Golden Star” or the “Company”) today announced that Roger Palmer, formerly Vice President Finance and Controller of Golden Star, has been named Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. He replaces former CFO John Labate, who has left the Company to pursue other interests.

Read the full article →

BEWARE: This Hair Product Emits Carcinogenic Formaldehyde

January 31, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO — The maker of a popular line of hair-straightening products has agreed to alert consumers that two of its formulations emit formaldehyde gas, a possible carcinogen, California’s attorney general announced Monday. The labeling changes are designed to settle a lawsuit the state filed in November against the company that makes Brazilian Blowout products, which have been a boon for those who dislike their naturally curly tresses but a source of health concerns. The products are applied during salon treatments and coupled with high heat to temporarily smooth the hair shaft. The attorney general’s office had accused North Hollywood-based GIB LLC of deceptive advertising because Brazilian Blowout Acai Smoothing Solution and Brazilian Blowout Professional Smoothing Solution were labeled as being free of formaldehyde, which can irritate the eyes, skin and lungs. “California laws protect consumers and workers and give them fair notice about the health risks associated with the products they use,” Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement. “This settlement requires the company to disclose any hazard so that Californians can make informed choices.” The company also agreed to pay $600,000 in penalties and fines for failing to notify consumers and hair stylists that its products contain chemicals that may cause cancer, and to have the products tested for all toxic substances at a state-approved lab. As part of the settlement GIB also will be required to supply salons with a pamphlet outlining recommended safety precautions. The company already has made the necessary labeling and marketing changes, and Brazilian Blowout products still will be available in California, GIB Chief Executive Officer Mike Brady said. “We believe the settlement reached with Attorney General Harris represents a fair and equitable resolution,” Brady said in a statement. “We are pleased to have this matter behind us and are confident these new practices will provide certified stylists who use our products each day and their loyal customers clarity and confidence.” Brazilian Blowout is a brand of keratin hair smoothers that first were popularized in Brazil but have been available in U.S. salons for several years. Both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have been investigating the products, which also sparked a class-action lawsuit on behalf of consumers in California last year.

Read the full article →

Ex-RBS Boss Sir Fred Goodwin Stripped Of His Knighthood

January 31, 2012

Former RBS boss Fred Goodwin has been stripped of his knighthood for bringing the honours system “into disrepute”, the Cabinet Office has confirmed. The decision was made by the Honours Forfeiture Committee who met last week to discuss whether Goodwin should hold on to his title, which he received in 2004 for services to banking. In a statement issued on Tuesday afternoon, the Cabinet Office said the committee had found that the “scale and severity of the impact of his actions as CEO of RBS” meant Goodwin could not keep his title. “In 2008 the government had to provide £20bn of new equity to recapitalise RBS and ensure its survival and prevent the collapse of confidence in the British banking and payments system,” the statement said. “Both the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury select committee have investigated the reasons for this failure and its consequences. “They are clear that the failure of RBS played an important role in the financial crisis of 2008-9 which, together with other macroeconomic factors, triggered the worst recession in the UK since the Second World War and imposed significant direct costs on British taxpayers and businesses. “Fred Goodwin was the dominant decision maker at RBS at the time.” The statement added: “In reaching this decision, it was recognised that widespread concern about Fred Goodwin’s decisions meant that the retention of a Knighthood for ‘services to banking’ could not be sustained.” Following the announcement, David Cameron said it was “the right decision” to strip him of his honour. Labour leader Ed Miliband has previously acknowledged that it was “clearly wrong” for the banker to have received a knighthood under the previous Labour government. According to officials, the Honours Forfeiture Committee would normally only consider cases only where an individual has been jailed for more than three months or has been struck off or censured by a professional body for failings relevant to the granting of the honour. On Sunday current RBS boss Stephen Hester announced he would not accept a bonus of almost £1m in the face of widespread public anger at the award. Goodwin now joins a short list of figures who have had their knighthoods taken away:

Read the full article →

Auction 2012: Energy Lobby Finds Power In Money And Fear

January 31, 2012

Auction 2012 is a weeklong series in collaboration with ” The Dylan Ratigan Show ” and United Republic . When George W. Bush overruled scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency in 2008 and set a new smog standard that was considerably weaker than they had recommended, it was just another example of how closely entwined the interests of the energy sector and the Republican Party had become. But when President Barack Obama this fall suddenly killed the stronger smog standards championed by his own EPA administrator — thereby leaving the Bush-era standards unchanged — it was a clear indication that the energy lobby’s influence is powerful enough to intimidate the Democrats as well. Obama’s decision was widely seen as driven by politics, not science or even economics. Lowering the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 60 parts would have prevented 4,000 to 12,000 premature deaths annually, along with 58,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 2.5 million days of missed work or school, according to the EPA . The agency also estimated that tightening the standard could cost as much as $90 billion per year, but that the benefits would total as much as $100 billion per year. Industry groups contended that millions of jobs would be lost. Environmentalists and progressives argued the new standard would likely have created jobs — and green jobs at that. Powerhouse lobbying groups , including the American Petroleum Institute, Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led a fierce fight, repeatedly meeting with White House officials to argue against the rule. Industry representatives worked the refs — then-White House chief of staff Richard Daley and regulatory czar Cass Sunstein — appealing to their own anti-regulatory leanings. And behind all that was the implicit — or perhaps explicit — threat that if Obama sided against the big money, it would return to haunt him, quite possibly in the form of massive ad purchases in swing states labeling him a job-killer in his reelection year. Especially in the new campaign finance era, there is legally no limit to how much firepower the energy sector could bring to bear. Of course, those attacks may come anyway. The energy industry pours hundreds of millions of dollars a year into political contributions and lobbying — considerably less than the financial, legal or health sectors, but by any other standards, a massive amount. Oil and gas interests, for instance, spent $145 million on lobbying in 2011, with electric utilities right behind at $144 million , according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics. In a telling sign of clout, more than half of the 2,177 registered lobbyists working on the energy sector’s behalf were formerly government officials. Unlike Wall Street , which historically has spread its campaign contributions around to both parties, the oil and gas industry leans heavily toward Republicans, especially over the last 15 years. At the same time, the GOP’s anti-tax policies, anti-regulatory campaigns and pro-drilling rhetoric have become increasingly indistinguishable from the American Petroleum Institute’s agenda. In the early 1990s, the oil and gas industry’s campaign spending favored Republicans over Democrats, but not by that much. For every $1 the industry gave to Democrats, it gave Republicans $1.78. But starting in the 1996 election cycle, that changed dramatically. By the 2010 election cycle, for every $1 the industry gave Democrats, it gave Republicans about $3.43. And so far in the 2012 campaign cycle, the tilt toward the GOP is more than 7 to 1 , with individuals and companies associated with oil and gas contributing almost $12 million to Republicans and $1.6 million to Democrats. In 1994, six of the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money were Democrats. Today, every single one is a Republican. Click image to enlarge. The like-mindedness linking the industry and the GOP is best illustrated these days by the party’s unprecedented congressional assault against environmental regulations. Last year, with Republicans back in control of the House, there were at least 159 votes on anti-environmental protection measures on the House floor alone, including 83 targeting the EPA, according to a list compiled by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That’s because the energy lobby never rests, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. “You’re not satisfied with having a D.C. operation just to make sure that government doesn’t do you any harm,” he said, explaining industry thinking. “The goal is not to maintain the status quo. What you really want to do is to try to gain advantage.” For the fossil fuel industry, that can also mean “trying to demonize alternatives to your business model,” including alternative energy sources and greater energy efficiency, Slocum said. And often the battle has come down to tax breaks. The energy industry won its most recent major tax break in 2004, after the World Trade Organization had repeatedly declared U.S. export tax incentives illegal. Congress set out to replace them with an income tax deduction for domestic manufacturing — and somehow oil and natural gas production, despite having been explicitly precluded from the earlier incentives, was covered by the new deduction. That windfall now adds about $1 billion a year to the industry’s bottom line. Federal tax breaks for oil and gas total somewhere between $4 billion and $9 billion a year , even as the industry revels in record profits , undaunted by the financial crisis that has crippled so much of the American economy. Obama’s line at the 2012 State of the Union address — “We’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough.” — was greeted by applause. But if history is any guide , his proposal will come to naught. Perhaps most important of all, the energy industry’s political power has allowed it to crush — and now make politically unthinkable — any effort to assess the external costs of greenhouse gases created in the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Just as one point of reference, a 2009 report from the National Research Council tried to estimate the costs of air pollution and other harms that are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels. The report pegged the price of the damage from fossil fuel production and consumption at $120 billion in the U.S. in 2005 alone — and that notably did not include the cost of climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some toxic air pollutants and risks to national security, all of which the report was unable to quantify. Looking at power plants’ burning of coal, the report found that damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter averaged about 3.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy produced. It estimated climate-related monetary damages at 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kwh, depending on assumptions. By contrast, coal costs 7 to 14 cents per kwh . Yet any kind of carbon tax or fee is politically impossible right now, said Kyle Ash, senior legislative representative for Greenpeace. It’s not so much an issue of dogma. “There are a lot fewer climate deniers than people think,” he said. It’s a matter of money. “There’s a lot of good data on which politicians are taking how much money from fossil fuel industries, and you can see clear connections,” Ash said, pointing to a recent Greenpeace report titled ” Polluting Democracy .” “I think it’s about who’s paying for their campaigns,” he said. The clearest evidence, he said, comes in the otherwise unresolvable contradiction between what politicians say and what they do. “The contradiction is that they’re also really opposed to federal outlays, and they want to cut taxes,” Ash said. “But they’re fighting against the removal of fossil fuel subsidies.” The Auction 2012 series explores the ways industries influence policymaking in five areas: banking, energy, health care, trade and education. Read Dylan Ratigan’s blog post introducing the series and his blog post on energy . Follow this diagram of energy-industry power from Dylan Ratigan’s book “Greedy Bastards”:

Read the full article →