recommendations

Huffington Post…

Standard & Poor’s decision to change the nation’s long-term credit outlook from stable to negative should be seen as a wakeup call to Congress and the White House that we simply must find a credible solution to the fiscal crisis, and soon. This is not strictly a domestic issue. Our government’s credit worthiness underpins the world economy. Foreign governments invest trillions in U.S. debt instruments because they believe our credit is good. The mere possibility that Congress will not extend the debt limit is enough to send shivers throughout the world financial system. The prospect of losing our credit worthiness in the not too distant future is even more disconcerting. Our ability to borrow vast sums of money at reasonable rates — and the acceptance of the U.S. dollar as the world currency of choice — confers upon us innumerable advantages. If we let these advantages slip away, the cost of credit will be higher, economic growth will be slower and our standard of living will be reduced. The reason for S&P’s change in outlook is not hard to understand. Our government is spending much more money than it takes in. Roughly 40 cents of every dollar that Uncle Sam spends is borrowed. We have had back-to-back deficits of $1.5 trillion and have almost reached our self-imposed debt limit. In the absence of a credible debt reduction plan, Congress may not be able to summon enough votes to raise the debt limit. If that happens, no one will need S&P to question our credit worthiness. It will be gone with the wind. The budget plan offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, was politically bold in that it proposed real reductions in entitlement spending. There is no question that is where the real problem is. Spending as a percentage of GDP has grown from 19 percent in 2000 to 25 percent of GDP in 2010, and almost all of that was due to the growth of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Any viable solution will of course include increased revenues, but there is not enough money in the world to plug that hole. Spending is the central problem that must be dealt with. Two bi-partisan deficit commissions, including the one created by President Obama, also made serious recommendations to reduce the deficit. One can quibble about specifics, but they did put everything on the table. Instead of criticizing Ryan, President Obama should focus on the recommendations of his own deficit commission. We need leadership to define the tough decisions that must be made and bring us all together to do what must be done. We urge the President to provide the leadership the country so urgently needs. Jerry Jasinowski, an economist and author, served as President of the National Association of Manufacturers for 14 years and later The Manufacturing Institute. You can quote from this with attribution. Let me know if you want to talk to Jerry.

More:
Jerry Jasinowski: The S&P Wakeup Call

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

Huffington Post…

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s plans to curb health care costs that drive the deficit would mean less taxpayer money for providers and more costs for beneficiaries as he draws from bipartisan ideas already on the table. But don’t look for his speech Wednesday to endorse a Medicare voucher system or turning Medicaid over to the states, as leading Republicans have proposed. Conceding the GOP’s point that government needs to cut and health care is one of the first places to look, Obama will try to change the direction of a deficit debate that threatens to get away from him. The president is using his speech to lay down broad principles and trace a path that could lead to compromise, but he won’t unveil a detailed program. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that health care savings are essential to control the deficit. The spokesman indicated Obama would build on the work of his debt commission, whose recommendations he initially refrained from endorsing. Carney also praised a small group of senators from both parties, known as the Gang of Six, that is trying to set up a framework for a divided Congress to reach compromise on deficits. “The president understands very well that health care spending is a major driver of our deficit and debt problem,” Carney said. “He believes … we can achieve those savings in ways that protect the people that these programs are supposed to, and were designed to, support and help.” One proposal in the debt commission’s report last year would rework Medicare’s deductibles and copayments so that most beneficiaries have to pay a share of their everyday bills – cost shifts that in a few years would add up to more than $100 billion in taxpayer savings. In exchange, Medicare recipients would get better protection against catastrophic costs. Another called for scaling back the tax deduction for workplace benefits, which many economists say would be like putting the entire health care system on a diet. It’s strongly opposed by unions, a major Democratic constituency. And the wild card: curbs on jury awards in malpractice cases. Democrats and Republicans have been rigidly divided on the issue, an arm-wrestling match between GOP-leaning doctors and trial lawyers who tend to back Democratic candidates. A breakthrough could help in other areas. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said “there is virtually no likelihood” Obama will endorse a voucher plan for Medicare or block grants for Medicaid. But medical malpractice is another story. “He has already said he is open to ideas there,” said the South Dakota Democrat, an adviser to Democrats on health care. Obama probably won’t drill down to that level of detail on Wednesday. Republicans already laid down their marker. Later this week, the House will debate a plan by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which would fundamentally change government health care programs that touch virtually every family, covering about 100 million Americans. Instead of Medicare, people now 54 and younger would get a government payment to buy private insurance when they retire. The Medicaid health insurance program for low-income people would be converted into a block grant, allowing each state to design its own program. But the poor would lose the right to coverage under federal law and middle-class retirees might not be able to keep up with future health costs. Ryan’s plan has been praised for its boldness. Even some who vehemently disagree with the specifics have credited the congressman for having the courage to start an adult conversation with the American people about the real costs of their health care programs. Obama’s approach would display another attribute commonly ascribed to adults: caution. A Medicare remake would probably require a mandate from the voters that neither party can claim. “You don’t have to dismantle the program in order to save it,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the debt commission. But he acknowledged that there would have to be “real cuts that will be painful.” In normal circumstances, the debt commission’s ideas would be considered far-reaching. Compared to Ryan’s plan, they’re incremental. They leave the big health care programs in place, as well as Obama’s overhaul, which Republicans would repeal. Obama is also expected to indicate his support for the efforts of six senators seeking deficit deal. In the group: three conservative Republicans, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Crapo of Idaho; two moderate Democrats, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mark Warner of Virginia; and a liberal Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois. One of the ideas they are considering would trigger the recommendations of the deficit commission, if Congress doesn’t meet certain targets for spending, taxes and deficits. Until now, the Gang of Six has worked in obscurity on what many consider a thankless task. The presidential seal of approval could improve their chances.

Link:
Obama Sizes Up Options For Health Care Cuts

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

Dan Solin: Mega-Deficits and Your Investment Portfolio

April 6, 2011

As of April 2, 20011, the outstanding public debt of the U.S. was in excess of $14 trillion. Your share of this debt is more than $46,000. The U.S. debt level is approximately 90% of its economic output. Many investors view the rising debt as having major implications for their U.S. based investments. On the surface, this concern makes perfect sense. Why would you want to invest in a country that can’t live within its means? Isn’t it obvious the whole deck of cards is about to come crashing down? Marlena Lea, a Vice-President of Dimensional Fund Advisors examined this issue in a thoughtful research paper . Her research considered the economic and investment ramifications of fiscal deficits. As expected, she found that deficits are related to higher long term interest rates. This makes perfect sense. As deficits increase, the risk of default also increases. It becomes more expensive to borrow money. High deficits may also stifle long-run economic growth. No surprise here. Budget deficits decrease national savings, which reduces investment in the domestic economy and increases foreign borrowing. Lower domestic investment leads to lower growth. You would think high interest rates and slow growth would be the perfect storm for investors. You would be wrong. Ms. Lea looked at the average annual returns in high and low growth countries in developed markets from 1971-2008. The low-growth countries had an average annual return of 13.52%, compared to 12.90% for the high-growth countries. The difference was more stark in the returns of countries in emerging markets. For the period from 2001-2008, the average annual return of low-growth countries was 24.62%, compared to 19.77% for high-growth countries. Ms. Lea concluded that deficits do not predict stock or bond returns and that low future economic growth does not mean low future stock returns, which is precisely the opposite of what most investors believe. What about currency depreciation? Many investors believe large fiscal deficits are a precursor of currency depreciation. This concern makes sense. The likelihood of inflation and default risk could cause investors to flee the dollar for safer, more stable currencies. The data does not support this view. U.S. deficits increased significantly from 1970-1990. The dollar got stronger, not weaker. The academic data indicates that exchange rates move randomly. Fortunes have been lost in the futile effort to predict currency returns. Ms. Lea is a highly credentialed academic. She has a Ph.D in finance from the University of Chicago, an MS in agricultural and resource economics and a BS in managerial economics. Most investors would not consider having heart surgery performed by someone without stellar credentials. Yet, they entrust their life savings to their friendly “investment professionals” who base their recommendations on little more than the direction of the wind on a given day. Many of them have no formal training in economics or finance. There is a vast amount of peer reviewed academic literature which debunks the common investment myths you hear in the financial media and from your “market beating” broker or advisor. Investing your money responsibly requires some effort to familiarize yourself with it, or with books summarizing this research. As for the latter, my books and those by John Bogle, William Bernstein, Burton Malkiel, Mark Hebner, Larry Swedroe, David Swenson and Allan Roth are a good place to start. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Peggy McColl: Success or Failure: Which Fear Is Really Holding You Back?

March 29, 2011

You are months, or even weeks away from launching your product or services online and you are ready to abolish the entire idea. Yikes! You might be surprised at how many other internet marketers, authors and solo-preneurs share your same doubts and fears. Many of my clients and I have experienced these negative issues associated with putting ourselves out there in the marketplace and wondering what will happen if…. if we fail, and if we succeed. Do these thoughts sound familiar? It’s not going to work I’ve spent all of this time and money building it and what if no one wants it? Why would anyone want to buy anything from me? My content is on X and I am not a perfect example of X Once I launch and it’s successful, the microscope will be on me to walk the talk and I may not be able to keep up with demand. One of my clients candidly confessed, “I don’t know if I am afraid of failure or afraid of success.” This is natural. There is a fear to fail because you’ve put so much into it, including your name, your brand and your reputation. The other side of the coin is what if it is a big success? Is it going to take her away from her family more than she’d like? If she’s feeling overwhelmed now, even before it launches, what will her life look like if it does take off? This coaching call reminded me of similar experiences I’ve had with feeling overwhelmed. In my earlier days of releasing some of my first books I felt like pulling the plug on the entire concept because I questioned who cares what I have to say. It brought back memories of my own fears. I wasn’t as concerned about failing as I was about succeeding and what that meant because then I’d have to step up, follow through and consistently deliver. That was a lot of pressure and I didn’t know if I wanted to set myself up for it. Is the fear of success better or easier to overcome than the fear of failure? Not really. Fear of any kind can be an immobilizer and you have to be able to stare it in the face and go for it anywhere. Here are the recommendations I made to my client and the strategy that can work for you: Understand your fears are natural so don’t be upset with yourself because these thoughts come up – it’s okay to feel it. Some of the most successful people in the world had that experience. Come from your heart, remember why you are doing it and reconnect to the passion that started the whole process in the first place. Continue to give the best of who you are Don’t worry that you are not perfect at what you are teaching others -you are human and that will resonate with your customers. Think about when a high-profile golfer has a tough match and when he is interviewed, he admits to not playing his best. We don’t fault him for that, we know how difficult it is to be on top of your game at all times. Don’t be afraid of sharing your own challenges – people will connect and respect your vulnerability. Let them see the real you. Make a conscious choice to put the fun back in to the process. There is tremendous value in asking yourself great questions such as: What do I like or enjoy about this? How will I make this more enjoyable? What am I grateful for in this experience? What am I most grateful for in my life right now? (This is a Biggie!) Put a reminder in front of you to stay connected to what you are enjoying most about this experience What am I learning? How am I growing? There will always be the one moment in time when you want to throw up your hands and give up. Remember it is just a moment, a day or a week and it is a temporary feeling. Take a break and do something else for a while until the feeling passes. I remember when I sent my first manuscript to my editor and when she said it was a great book my response was, “Really???” She laughed and said, “Oh you authors are so insecure.” We are all very similar when it comes to taking a risk and putting ourselves out there. Two decades ago Susan Jeffers published her book, Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway . It is still true to this day!

Read the full article →

Michael Pento: Geithner’s Failed Makeover

February 18, 2011

To counter the increasing demands that government reduce its micromanagement of the economy, last week the Obama Administration offered a fig leaf in the form of a white paper entitled “Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market.” In addition to marking the official end of the Bush era “ownership society,” where increasing the level of home ownership was a national priority, the document contains a recommended regulatory overhaul of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together known as Government Sponsored Enterprises “GSE’s”), that intends to bring the share of government owned home loans from the current 95% to 40% over the next 5-7 years. In the report, the Obama Administration makes the important admission that government interference in housing had dangerously distorted the market. And, while the goal of reducing the government’s footprint in the housing market is certainly laudable, the reform plan is not only too little too late, but fails miserably to address the nucleus of the problem. Even if all the recommendations are adopted, the government would actually extend its explicit guarantees to bail out failing lenders. Most importantly, the proposal completely overlooks the most significant government distortion of the housing market: the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates. Thus, this plan will insure that government’s role in the mortgage market will likely expand in the years ahead. Banks are in the business of borrowing on the short end of the yield curve and lending on the long end. Since interest rates are generally lower for shorter time durations, banks make profits by capturing the spread. But if the gap between long term and short term rates narrow, or sometimes vanish completely, banks have a much harder time operating. Rapid and dramatic changes in interest rates also expose banks to money losing risks. In a free market, whenever the supply of savings contracts the cost of money tends to increase. Those rising interest rates curb the demand for borrowing and increase the propensity to save. Conversely, increased savings rates lower the price of money, thereby encouraging more borrowing. Consequently, in a free economy market forces tend to stabilize interest rate volatility. However in the United States interest rates are anything but free. When interest rates are set by a few people behind closed doors, as they are by the Federal Reserve, massive distortions can occur in the supply demand metric. For example, the S&L crisis of the late 80′s and early 90′s was brought about by the loose monetary policy of the 70′s. Rising interest rates, which were a direct response to rising inflation, soon found S&L’s paying out more on their short-term borrowed funds than they were collecting on their long term assets. The consequences for those imbalances caused by our central bank rendered nearly one thousand banks insolvent. To mitigate this problem, early in the last decade banks began turning more and more to securitization as a way to unload the mortgages on their books by packaging and selling loans to outside investors. Not only does securitization bring in fees and reduce banks’ risk exposure but it also sucks in more capital to the real estate market, while increasing financial sector profits. It’s no wonder that the securitization market grew to over $10 trillion in the U.S. before the credit crisis of 2008. On paper this was a good solution to the problem, but additional government involvement in the securitization market threw in a monkey wrench. Given the size and diversity of the investment market in the U.S. and around the world, there was adequate private demand for securitized mortgages. With relatively low risk and more generous yields than government debt, pension funds and other institutional investors bought heavily. However, as the Federal Reserve continued to lower rates and as the government engineered housing boom finally went bust, this private label demand dried up almost completely. The GSEs now provide financing for 9 out of 10 mortgages. Therefore, the real estate market today is virtually 100% distorted and manipulated by government forces. Treasury Secretary Geithner–the President’s main pitch man for the program–touted the proposed solution of a hybrid federal reinsurance plan that would include a standing federal catastrophic reinsurer for private guarantors of mortgage-backed securities. The government has already clearly shown that its erstwhile implicit guarantee is now in fact explicit for GSE debt. That condition would remain intact. However, now government involvement would also morph into an explicit guarantee to reinsure private label mortgages. Therefore, in typical government fashion, the proposed reforms are merely a repackaging of the previous sham. Even if the plan were to be successfully carried out, the GSEs would still account for nearly half of all mortgage financing. Only now the government would also back private insurance for private label MBS with yet another explicit guarantee in case of emergency. Who can doubt that such conditions will inevitably arise? As to how this can ever satisfy the need to remove moral hazard or getting the government out of the housing market is beyond me. In other words, there is no meaningful governmental withdrawal from the market. Most importantly, the plan does nothing to address the Fed’s role in making interest rates much lower and more volatile than they would otherwise be. Unfortunately the housing market will remain in government control for years to come and another real estate crisis will inevitably occur. Michael Pento is the Senior Economist for Euro Pacific Capital

Read the full article →

Will NYSE’s Merger Help Prevent Another ‘Flash Crash’?

February 18, 2011

NEW YORK (By Jonathan Spicer) – The merger frenzy among the world’s top exchanges could cast the U.S.-centric “flash crash” debate in a global light, as experts on Friday pitch some possibly radical changes meant to avoid another market breakdown. A special committee is set to meet in Washington to make its long-awaited recommendations to regulators — now more than nine months since the unprecedented market crash sent the Dow Jones industrial average down some 700 points before rebounding, all in a matter of minutes. The May 6 crash rattled investors, exposed flaws in the structure of today’s electronic markets, and set regulators on a mission to fix the high-speed system. The exchanges at the center of the breakdown, however, added a new wrinkle to the debate when in the last week they set off a new wave of planned global mergers, including the takeover of Big Board parent NYSE Euronext by Germany’s Deutsche Boerse. While the deals could strengthen the oversight of cross-border trading and boost the flow of global liquidity, they also tie the world’s interconnected markets tighter together, possibly setting the stage for larger-scale crashes, some observers said. Seth Merrin, chief executive of market operator Liquidnet, said the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission need to coordinate with regulators elsewhere to understand how sharp movements in one country’s market can hit derivatives traded in others. “Nobody as far as I can see has said to all of the other regulators that if you’re going to create securities that link to anything in my market, we have to talk,” said Merrin, whose venue lets institutional investors trade anonymously. “I don’t know that investors can sustain another flash crash,” he said in an interview. After the crash, one of the first steps taken by the CFTC and the SEC was to strike the committee to come up with some answers. The group includes Financial Industry Regulatory Authority head Richard Ketchum and former CFTC Chairman Brooksley Born, among others. Robert Engle, an Nobel Prize-winning economist also on the committee, told Reuters that members discussed several possible changes, including giving special rebates that would help stabilize markets during stressful times, and cracking down on the growing amount of trading outside of the public exchanges. Engle, interviewed earlier this month, said at the time that no final recommendations had been set. The SEC and CFTC, which hosts the Friday meeting, could formally propose rule changes based on the recommendations. They have already made a handful of adjustments to the marketplace in the wake of the flash crash, including adding trading pauses known as circuit breakers. In another nod to boosting market security, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro told a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday the agency asked all exchanges for audits of their security policies, after Nasdaq Stock Market parent Nasdaq OMX Group said on February 5 that hackers had breached its computer systems. Rounding out the merger activity that caught fire last week, London Stock Exchange bid to buy Canada’s TMX Group, and, according to a source, BATS Global Markets is nearing a deal to buy fellow private exchange operator Chi-X Europe. BATS accounts for about 10 percent of all U.S. stock trading. (Reporting by Jonathan Spicer; Editing by Gary Hill) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Video: Levy Says U.S. Monetary, Fiscal Policies Not Sustainable

February 14, 2011

Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) — Mickey Levy, chief economist at Bank of America Corp., discusses the U.S. economy, Federal Reserve policy and the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission. Levy speaks with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television’s “Surveillance Midday.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Gregg Faults Obama for Lack of Leadership on Budget

February 14, 2011

Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) — Former U.S. Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who chaired the Senate Budget Committee, discusses President Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal 2012 and the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission. Gregg speaks with Scarlet Fu and Peter Cook on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Don Tapscott: Davos 2011: Davos Becoming a Year-Round Network to Tackle Global Problems

January 26, 2011

Davos, Switzerland — The World Economic Forum is quickly morphing from a once-a-year talkathon into a year-round network of leaders and leading thinkers tackling global problems. Nature hates a vacuum, and the Forum is expanding to fill a void in our systems for global cooperation. It gets people acting constructively, in sharp contrast to the recent failures of other bodies such as the Doha Development Round of the World Trade Organization and the Cancun or Copenhagen Conferences on climate change. It also fills a special role in bringing together the leaders of the Asian “Tiger Countries” into dialogue with the West — something no one else is doing well. We need such networks for dialogue and for launching important initiatives. True, no one “elected” the Forum to try and solve global problems. But increasingly legitimacy flows to those who actually accomplish things and most participants would say that the Forum is doing just that. For example, over the last two years a thousand leading thinkers have been collaborating in 72 so-called Global Agenda Councils, rethinking many aspects of society from poverty to the future of government. One group of legal scholars has a modest little project — rethinking the global legal system, which they argue is “no longer fit for function.” These councils meet several times a year and collaborate between meetings on a global technology platform developed by the Forum. Many of the recommendations from these councils have been implemented by governments and corporations and some important initiatives have been catalyzed. One of these, the Global Risk Response Network to be launched here this week, addresses a new set of emerging risks that threaten the global economy, society and even the very existence of humanity. Failure of the financial system, weapons of mass destruction, new communicable diseases, collapse of environmental systems, water security and 20 other possibilities make the world a volatile place subject to significant and potentially catastrophic risks. Consider something as seemingly mundane as the global supply chain. The vast networks that provide the world with food, clothing, fuel and other necessities could handle an Iceland volcano and one other catastrophe such as the failure of the Panama Canal. But according to experts, a third simultaneous disaster would collapse the system. People around the world would stop getting food and water, leading to unthinkable social unrest. The Risk Network is designed to help corporate, government and civil society leaders better mitigate such risks. The world’s most relevant global decision-makers will be brought together through a community of Risk Officers from top corporations, governments and international organizations. It will draw on insights from the World Economic Forum’s communities and contributors, including expert Forum working groups and a network of the world’s top universities. If a global crisis arises, these leaders could spring to action on a secure network, drawing on insights from any of the Forum’s many communities. More important, rather than just reacting to unanticipated problems like the European sovereign debt crisis, leaders could be more proactive. This approach was informally prototyped during the Haitian earthquake disaster. It wasn’t the United Nations that organized the world’s response to Haiti – it was myriad organizations and individuals that self-organized to save lives and restore order and Haitian society. The informal network of collaborators orchestrated by the Forum was one of these, pointing to the potential of a more disciplined approach. Rather than a typical think tank, the World Economic Forum is becoming a do tank. Don Tapscott recently co-authored Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World.

Read the full article →

Bing Upgrades Search With A Hand From Facebook

December 16, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft Corp. is hoping its Bing search engine can gain more ground on Google with a little more help from Facebook and its other Internet friends. As part of an extensive upgrade announced Wednesday, Bing will feature more recommendations and other information from people’s social circles on Facebook to help distinguish its results from Google’s. Bing also is teaming up with several other Internet companies to make it easier to complete a variety of tasks, such as buying tickets to a sporting event or making reservations at a restaurant, on its site. The changes, which will start appearing during the next few weeks, are unlikely to shift the balance of power in the lucrative search market any time soon. Google Inc. ended November with a 66 percent share of the U.S. search market while Bing remained a distant third at just under 12 percent, according to the research firm comScore Inc. Bing recently started to power Yahoo’s U.S. search engine, whose 16 percent share ranks second to Google. Despite the huge gap, Microsoft has been encouraged by the progress it has made since it retooled its search engine and rebranded it as Bing in June 2009. Bing has about 90 million regular users now, up from 27 million when it made its debut, according to Satya Nadella, a senior vice president in Microsoft’s online services division. Some of the new features unveiled Wednesday provided a glimpse at how Microsoft hopes to capitalize on a competitive advantage that it gained in October when Facebook agreed to give Bing greater access to the 500 million people who have set up accounts on its social network Google Inc. still isn’t able to compile the same volume of Facebook information in its search index. Microsoft has been chummy with Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, since it paid $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in the privately held company three years ago. Microsoft believes its Facebook relationship will become an increasingly important factor in the search market as people realize how helpful it is to see the recommendations of their friends when they’re looking for information on the Web. The breadth of those recommendations is rapidly growing as people spend more time on Facebook and become more comfortable sharing their preferences. In one upcoming change, if you are searching on Bing while signed into your Facebook account, some of the links listed in the results might include notation showing that one of your Facebook friends liked the website or a product. Bing also will draw from Facebook when processing requests about people. In some instances, the results will show whether the Bing user making the search request shares any common Facebook friends with the person being researched. Microsoft also is betting it can lure Web surfers away from Google by making Bing a one-stop shop for a range of common online activities. Toward that end, Bing has formed an alliance with a specialty search engine FanSnap to enable people to buy tickets from within the results page. It also is working with OpenTable Inc. to provide more convenient access to restaurant reservations. A variety of other revisions are being made to Bing’s image and mobile search. Google also is constantly tweaking its search engine to make it faster and smarter. In the most dramatic change this year, Google in September started to display search results that change with each keystroke in the request box. It’s also trying to get better data about airline flights , a popular search topic, with a proposed $700 million acquisition of travel technology vendor of ITA Software Inc. Microsoft is among several companies pressing the U.S. Justice Department to block the ITA deal on the grounds that it would give Google too much control over online travel bookings. Google dismisses those complaints as misguided. The Justice Department isn’t expected to complete its review of the deal until next year.

Read the full article →

John Robbins: Who’s Done More Damage, Bernard Madoff or Alan Greenspan?

December 11, 2010

Exactly two years ago today, I received a phone call from hell. My financial adviser and close friend, with whom I had invested all of my family’s life savings, called to tell me that overnight we had lost 95 percent of our net worth. It turned out that our life savings had been invested in a fund that had been handled by Bernard Madoff. Because we weren’t direct investors (I didn’t even know who Madoff was prior to his arrest), there was no hope of our ever recovering a penny. Tragically, what happened to my family overnight is happening to many, many people today, only more slowly. It is one of the darkest nightmares of our times that so many people are losing their homes, their pensions, their jobs, their savings, and any semblance of financial security. The official unemployment rate is 9.8 percent, but if you include the underemployed (those who have part-time work but can’t find a full-time job, though they need one), and add in also the huge numbers of unemployed people who have given up looking for work because they feel the search is hopeless, the figure rises to above 22 percent. There are already 19 million vacant homes in the country, with another 10 million foreclosures in the pipeline. The average household credit card debt is nearly $16,000. And the U.S. dollar, which has been the world’s reserve currency for almost 100 years, is losing value and appears increasingly unstable. How did we ever get into such a mess? Last year, a Newsweek poll found Bernard Madoff to be the most despised person in history. Having been a victim of his fraud, I understand. But some people think that when it comes to wreaking financial havoc, Madoff was a piker compared to the man who was dubbed history’s greatest Federal Reserve chairman upon his retirement in 2006 — Alan Greenspan. Why? Because Greenspan may be more responsible than any other single human being for the disastrous developments in our nation’s economy. Author Matt Taibbi doesn’t mince words on the subject. In his new book about how bubbles and bailouts have decimated the U.S. economy, he none-too-subtly calls Greenspan “the biggest asshole in the universe.” Madoff lived high and mighty as a billionaire as long as he kept his Ponzi scheme afloat. Greenspan was revered as long as he kept the party going for the ultra-rich, as long as he kept one bubble after another inflated. But with every party, there’s always the morning after. The collapse of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme bankrupted not just tens of thousands of families, but many charitable foundations, nonprofit organizations, and hospital and school endowments. The bursting of Greenspan’s bubbles, on the other hand, decimated the entire U.S. economy, bankrupting tens of millions of families. In his biography of Greenspan, appropriately titled Greenspan’s Bubbles , MSN Money columnist William Fleckenstein recounts the devastating series of bubbles and crashes that directly ensued from Greenspan’s policies. The Savings and Loan scandal was the first tip-off. As a paid consultant for Lincoln Savings and Loan, Greenspan was an ardent advocate of Savings and Loan deregulation. When Lincoln’s parent corporation went bankrupt in 1989, more than 21,000 mostly elderly investors lost their life savings. This was, however, peanuts compared to what was to follow. With Greenspan as the head of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, and with his policies running the show, the tech bubble was inflated only to burst in 2000, closely followed by the real estate bubble that began to burst in 2007, and the credit bubble that burst in 2008. Greenspan’s policies contributed massively to each of these bubbles, and thus to their inevitable collapse. Like Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, they provided illusory returns, not based on any real goods, services or value provided, but rather on the attraction soaring returns have for new entrants into the game. The costs of each of these market collapses are measured not in the billions but in the trillions of dollars, and they’ve come so quickly on the heels of one another that we may think of them as business as usual. That’s why it’s important to grasp that, prior to Greenspan’s arrival, the U.S. had been nearly bubble-free for more than 50 years. The only exception? A brief mania for gold and other precious metals in late 1979 and early 1980. Prior to running the Federal Reserve, Greenspan headed the National Commission on Social Security Reform. The original intent behind Social Security was generous and benevolent. At the height of the Great Depression, our society resolved to create a safety net that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled, and the survivors of deceased workers. It was the formalizing of the long-respected tradition of supporting elders and others who are less able to fend for themselves. The idea was to create less fear and more economic security. But once Greenspan got involved, things immediately began to change. His policies triggered a staggering transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes into the hands of the richest members of society. It is not an exaggeration to say that the resulting concentration of money and power in the hands of the few is undermining the economy, corrupting democracy, deepening the racial wealth divide, and tearing communities and families apart. It was primarily due to Greenspan’s proposals that the Social Security tax rate went from 9.35 percent in 1981 to 15.3 percent in 1990. Social Security taxes are borne primarily by the lower and middle economic classes. They only apply to wage income, not to investment income, so people who work for a living pay through the nose while those who invest for a living pay not at all. Fair, right? Social Security taxes are currently capped at about $106,000. This means that a married couple who earns $106,000 a year will pay more than $16,000 in Social Security taxes. They will pay the same amount that Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and his wife will pay, even though Ellison’s income over the past 10 years was nearly $2 billion . A couple near the bottom of the economic ladder, earning $30,000 a year between them, obviously has nothing to spare, yet they pay $4,590 in Social Security taxes. Billionaire investors and hedge-fund managers, meanwhile, may pay nothing, because they can usually structure their income so that none of it is subject to Social Security or Medicare taxes. The policies that were implemented following the recommendations of Greenspan’s commission have produced, in the last 20 years, $1.7 trillion in new taxes borne almost entirely by the lower and middle class. There might have been some justification for this if the amount of benefits you would eventually receive was directly related to the amount of money you paid into the pool, and if the money was set aside for future Social Security recipients. Prior to Greenspan’s reforms, that’s essentially how things were done. But thanks to his innovations, this is no longer the case. The money is no longer held separate from the rest of the budget, and has been used instead for other government spending. It was George W. Bush’s first Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill who publicly announced the bad news. “I come to you as managing director of Social Security,” he said. “Today we have no assets in the trust fund. We have the good faith and credit of the United States government that benefits will flow.” It’s hard to avoid noticing that Social Security is increasingly taking on some of the characteristics of a legally-mandated Ponzi scheme. Bernard Madoff was a liar and psychopath who recklessly stole tens of billions of dollars. He will spend the rest of his pathetic life in prison. Alan Greenspan, on the other hand, is still widely admired. Not that long ago, he was almost considered a candidate for Mt. Rushmore. He was certainly the most influential proponent of financial deregulation in the last century. But a generation from now, who will history judge with more scorn? For practical, down-to-earth advice on how you can thrive in these hard economic times, see John Robbins’ new book, The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less . John’s other bestsellers include The Food Revolution and Diet For A New America . He is the recipient of the Rachel Carson Award, the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, the Peace Abbey’s Courage of Conscience Award, and Green America’s Lifetime Achievement Award. To learn more about his work, visit www.johnrobbins.info .

Read the full article →

Leo Hindery, Jr.: Out of School, Out of Work, Out of Luck: The Youth Jobs Crisis

October 26, 2010

“For disadvantaged youth lacking basic education, failure to find a first job or keep it for long can have negative long-term consequences on their career prospects that some experts refer to as ‘scarring’. Beyond the negative effects on future wages and employability, long spells of unemployment while young often create permanent scars through the harmful effects on a number of other outcomes, including happiness, job satisfaction and health, many years later.” This language is from the 2010 report of the 33-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and while meant to be a coda for all the members, it seems to have special applicability today to the biggest OECD member of all, which of course is the United States of America, where fully 5 million out-of-school youth are now unemployed. In all, there are now 30 million real unemployed Americans — not just the 15 million “officially” being counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — and they are all entitled to every reasonable public, private, ‘public & private’, and organized labor-based effort to find them employment. But we know that a jobless recovery can seem even more “jobless” to some out-of-work Americans than others, and right now it is our nation’s African Americans, Latinos, blue collar males with high school diplomas and older workers who are facing much higher unemployment rates than other Americans. Side by side with these unemployed workers for whom the challenge of reemployment is particularly high, however, are, as I said, five million youth who are desperately seeking initial employment. And this is not by any measure a static number, for each year, in recessions and in good times alike, another 6.4 million or so young people graduate from high school and college. Five million is a huge, unprecedented number of unemployed youth — in recent past recessions it never exceeded 1.5 to 2 million — and the reason that this issue is so important is because a young person’s prolonged delay into his first job has career-long impacts which show up as more limited job skills, fewer subsequent promotions and thus much lower lifetime income. These unemployed young people are entitled to a new, broad-based, government-supported “Youth Employment Initiative” that draws from our previous experiences with Roosevelt’s CCC, Kennedy’s VISTA and Peace Corps programs, and Johnson’s CETA program and from newer programs like Teach for America and CityBridge Foundation’s Service Corps program. Unfortunately, because there are few extant agencies or initiatives which, even with immediate additional funding, could accommodate these five million youth, this new program will have to be instantly created. New Deal-like programs for workers whose earnings immediately cycle back into the economy were once our specialty — they should be again. The CCC under Roosevelt found hundreds of thousands of entry-level jobs for young people, and almost all of the costs of the CCC immediately flowed back into small businesses in local areas. VISTA placed young volunteers in deeply rural and poor urban communities working on uplifting poverty reduction efforts. The Peace Corps is of course the nearly fifty-year old international version of VISTA, but with the energy that the Obama administration and friends in the Congress like Nita Lowey it is now a trajectory of growth and impact never seen before in its history. This year there will be 8,600 Peace Corps Volunteers, up from the 7,500 when President Obama took office, and the goal is to reach 10,000 volunteers in 2011, the actual 50th anniversary of the founding of the Corps. These are worthwhile goals that should be supported, especially because the Peace Corps is now doing an amazing job of supporting career placement of its volunteers when they return home to the U.S., which ties in perfectly with the unemployed youth programs we need to create nation-wide. Of the two newer programs, Teach for America, on the Board of which I serve and was for several years its Chairman, each year takes 5,000 remarkable new college graduates — out of an applicant pool ten times as large — and finds them two-year teaching assignments in some of our nation’s most challenged public elementary and middle schools. Founded in 1990, 60% of TFA’s corps members have remarkably chosen to continue their careers in education after their initial two-year assignments. ServiceCorps’ three signature programs connect workers with compelling community projects that create a lasting, positive impact on both employees and their community, with a noteworthy emphasis on entry level positions. All of these programs have repeatedly proven their value over time, with many positive long-term benefits. The unemployed youth problem in this country today may be unprecedented in size, but solutions for it are not without models and past successes to emulate. Unemployed youth in 2010 are at once different and the same as the unemployed youth in the prior nine recessions since the end of WW II. Whatever differences do exist are mostly nuances that should not hold us back from acting. As complements to the Youth Employment Initiative, Congress should undertake community-based federal government job creation in general, which would bring immediate benefit especially to those employment-challenged African Americans, Latinos, blue collar males with high school diplomas, and older workers to whom I earlier referred. These efforts should be directed at restoring our environment, policing communities, providing child care and tutoring, cleaning up abandoned houses and buildings, maintaining parks and public spaces, and preserving historic buildings. President Obama’s recently announced transportation-based infrastructure initiatives for the next Congress to consider should also be expanded to recognize the special travails confronting the harder-to-place unemployed and to include energy conservation work in our schools and municipal buildings. These latter efforts would bring to the table an extraordinary combination of good energy policy, help to domestic manufacturers of green products, and initial and re-employment of deeply at risk workers. The federal government should also take steps within existing programs, including the Workforce Investment Act, to provide additional incentives for job creation and training in much needed areas such as nursing, engineering and math & science instruction. And we should create a Teacher’s Aid Corps to complement the Teacher’s Corps, which should include allowing reasonable amounts of time for job searches and added training. One of the greatest opportunities for the out-of-school unemployed youth and even many older unemployed workers, however, will always be found in apprentice programs. That same 2010 report from the OECD lauded such programs for allowing young workers to acquire much needed skills and work experience. It pointed out, as an example, that Germany, which has a long and proud history of high-quality apprentice programs, has an almost unbelievable low ratio of youth unemployment to adult unemployment of only 1.5 to 1, compared to 2.8 to 1 across the entirety of the OECD including the U.S. International research suggests that there are few more viable ways of making a difference in the short-term, in the absence of an improved economy and more dynamic labor market, than from apprentice programs. For example, a pan-European study by the European Central Bank found that direct interventions such as preferential hiring policies and greater wage flexibility have relatively little impact on improving job prospects for young people when markets are generally slow. However, the higher rates of youth employment in countries with apprenticeship systems suggest that the development of education and training programs linked specifically to labor market needs are the most promising longer-term option. More generally, we also know that policies intended to increase the academic attainment levels of all students in the United States clearly help to improve the job prospects of young people in the longer-term, and thus maximize the contribution of this group to economic growth. So, let me add another initiative to consider. Since 2006, long before the depths of this Great Recession of 2007 made many things suddenly seem automatic, I have proposed that all fixes to our nation’s education travails should start with improving the economic plight of our K-12 teachers, which we know would also have great ripple effects on the employment future of the country’s high school students and graduates. Specifically, it’s time for these teachers to be given federal income-tax relief, and we will all be the beneficiaries when they get it. Here’s why this makes sense. According to numerous surveys, both the public and teachers want an increase in teacher pay. Of course, there are other pressing issues, including better facilities, better curricula, better-trained administrators, and greater parent involvement. But responses to these needs, because they involve overcoming ingrained bureaucratic obstacles and instilling personal motivation, will take years to effect and move through the system. So, let’s start by giving refundable tax credits to K-12 teachers at all accredited schools based on their qualifications and teaching specialties, in order to increase the pool of teachers in critically important areas such as languages, math and sciences, and instructing students who are economically disadvantaged or have disabilities. Effective salaries would immediately rise to more livable levels, and improved quality would follow right behind. Our country has a long successful record of using the tax code to reward what we as a society determine are desirable social actions. We agree, for example, that it’s important to encourage homeownership, so we allow homeowners to deduct all sorts of related costs. And in the 1960s we gave income-tax relief to those VISTA and Peace Corps volunteers because their work was deemed so important — and today we give substantial relief to our courageous and patriotic active-duty military personnel. But teachers are just as patriotic and important, their contributions to our nation’s vibrancy and economic well-being are exceptional, and vis-à-vis all other municipal professions (police, fire, general services) they are far and away the most difficult public servants to recruit and retain. America has approximately three million K-12 teachers, which is a big number, yet their aggregate federal income taxes run only about $15 billion to $20 billion a year. This is only about six-tenths of one percent or so of the U.S. Treasury’s expected total receipts in any year — or a couple of months’ worth of our ongoing expenditures in Afghanistan. As with any material change to the tax code, we would need to “pay” for this benefit to teachers. But even in these budget-starved times there are many thoughtful ways to do this, starting with once and for all closing the entirety of the ‘carried interest’ tax loophole, which alone would just about cover the annual cost of the proposed teachers benefit. All informed citizens, starting with teachers themselves, want high teaching standards and accountability. Federal income tax relief for teachers of the sort I describe would be a powerful response to this demand, and a just as powerful step toward assuring the long-term vibrancy of our society, the health of our national economy, and our global competitiveness. Let me close by briefly going back to those five million out-of-school unemployed youth, for in so many ways they seem to be ground-zero indicators of the nation’s overall jobless plight and our solutions to that plight. Virtually all of the recommendations in this piece call for a greater role for the government, and I don’t apologize for any of that, for when the mountain of woe is as high as it is now, you call for Edmund Hillary, which in this case is the government. But it can’t be just the government, since, as our kids might say, we also need beaucoup amounts of enlightened private sector involvement in these efforts. Responsible business leaders with a pervasive sense of concurrent and equal corporate responsibility to shareholders, employees, communities and the nation are the logical individuals to kick-start these additional job-creation efforts, for it is they who should have the foresight to see the obvious benefits. But these problems are so great and such an overhang on our economy that we need the inspiration and perspiration of the leaders at every level of our national community. Leo Hindery, Jr. is Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Currently an investor in media companies, he is the former CEO of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), Liberty Media and their successor AT&T Broadband. He also serves on the Board of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.

Read the full article →

BP Sells 4 Gulf Of Mexico Fields To Marubeni To Pay For Oil Spill

October 25, 2010

LONDON — BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley accused some politicians and the media on Monday of being too hasty to pin all the blame on his company for the devastating Gulf of Mexico spill – and emphasized the need for deep-water drilling. In his first major public speech since taking the top job, Dudley also said BP would not pull out of the United States – and that the U.S. needs a company with BP’s resources to meet its vast energy needs. Dudley delivered a speech whose mood hovered between firm and penitent, seeking to make clear that BP was learning every lesson possible from the disaster. He stressed that he also has met with experts from other hazardous industries, including the nuclear and chemical industries, as part of the company’s focus on improving safety. “We were certainly not perfect in our response, but we have tried to do the right thing,” Dudley added. Before becoming the first American to lead the British oil company on Oct. 1, Dudley was in charge of BP’s spill response efforts in the Gulf. U.S. lawmakers have widely blamed BP for the disaster. On Monday, Dudley said many parties, including the media and rival oil companies, were guilty of “a great rush to judgment” before all the facts were known. “I watched graphic projections of oil swirling around the Gulf, around Florida, across and around Bermuda to England – these appeared authoritative and inevitable. The public fear was everywhere,” he said. The company’s own investigation shared the blame with rig owner Transocean Ltd. and contractor Halliburton Co. The U.S. government could fine BP up to $21 billion for the spill, on top of a $20 billion disaster fund that the company has committed itself to. A bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives would prevent companies like BP that have a poor safety record from getting new offshore permits. A Senate bill that was eventually tabled didn’t contain a similar provision. Speaking at an annual conference of Britain’s leading business lobby group, Dudley stressed BP’s commitment to the United States despite the ongoing political and public fallout and talked up the company’s ability to withstand the expected financial hit from the spill. Earlier Monday, BP announced it has sold its stake in four mature oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico to Marubeni Oil and Gas for $650 million (euro466 million). The fields were part of a recent acquisition of Gulf assets from Devon Energy and were considered nonessential. BP is hoping to raise $30 billion from selling assets and already has raked in almost $9 billion from the sale of properties in Egypt, Canada, the U.S. and Colombia. Dudley argued that deepwater drilling is necessary despite the dangers. He cited predictions that the world could be consuming 40 percent more energy than today by 2030. Deepwater drilling is projected to grow to account for 9 percent of total oil supplies in 2020, from 7 percent currently. He said BP is “one of only a handful of companies with the financial and technological strengths to undertake development projects in these difficult geographies and it can be done safely.” BP continues to make plans for further drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. Rig owner Pride International Inc. said BP has leased two of its deepwater rigs. One of those rigs is already in the Gulf and another is on its way. Pride spokeswoman Kate Perez said it’s unclear what projects are in store for those rigs – they still could be moved out of the Gulf. BP relies on the Gulf for about 10 percent of its total oil and gas production. President Barack Obama recently lifted a moratorium on new deepwater drilling in the Gulf, imposed after the April 20 explosion that kicked off the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Obama is due to announce further recommendations under a presidential commission in the coming months. Dudley, who took over from gaffe-prone former CEO Tony Hayward early this month, also sought again to reassure business leaders that the company has the financial strength to shoulder the anticipated heavy costs of the Gulf spill. Dudley said he has spent much of his time since becoming CEO traveling the world to visit BP’s partners. “Our underlying operational and financial performance is sound,” he said, stressing the company’s wide geographical reach. Analysts responded with optimism. “That’s what the company needs, it needs a determined champion not an apologist,” said Nick McGregor, an analyst at Redmayne-Bentley Stockbrokers. “He’s going to want to go forward and leave the apologies … His job is to acknowledge the past, not continuously apologize for it.” Dudley dismissed suggestions that the United States might turn its back on the company, or that BP could voluntarily leave the United States. “I am confident that neither of these propositions is true,” he said. “Contrary to what is sometimes said, BP is not widely seen over there as ‘British Petroleum’: we’re part of the American community.”

Read the full article →

Larry Summers Replacement: Progressive Economists Offer Their Suggestions, ‘No More Rubinites’

September 23, 2010

Progressive economists have one piece of advice for President Barack Obama when it comes to replacing top economic adviser Larry Summers: No more Robert Rubin disciples. Summers, who served as head of the White House’s National Economic Council, a position created by former President Bill Clinton and first filled by Rubin, was a key architect of the administration’s various economic policies to combat the biggest financial crisis and economic downturn since the Great Depression. Those policies — the bailout of Detroit automakers, an $814 billion stimulus package, subsequent programs under TARP, Cash for Clunkers and the administration’s unlimited backstop of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — arguably saved an economy that many considered to be on the verge of collapse. But while the recession officially ended last year, it hasn’t for most American households. The unemployment rate has risen nearly two percentage points since Obama took office, Labor Department figures show. Private-sector job creation is anemic. Growth has stagnated. Incomes have barely risen. Unpaid debts are being written off. And household wealth is lower today than where it was last December, according to Federal Reserve data through June. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to say Wednesday during a Congressional hearing whether the U.S. is officially out of the recession. Large banks and corporations, on the other hand, are thriving. Corporate profits have risen to pre-crisis levels, according to the Commerce Department. Company balance-sheets haven’t been this strong since 1956, Fed data show. Firms with access to the capital markets are taking advantage of record-low interest rates and refinancing expensive debt, and pocketing the difference. Last month, IBM sold three-year notes to investors, offering 1 percent interest . On Wednesday, Microsoft Corp. sold three-year notes at 0.875 percent interest to help fund share buybacks and increased dividends for shareholders. It’s reportedly the lowest interest ever offered by a company looking to sell three-year debt. A key lieutenant to Rubin after the former Goldman Sachs head and Citigroup chairman became Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Summers eventually succeeded him in that post. Together, the two men advocated for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era law that separated commercial banking activities from investment banking, and fought to deregulate the derivatives market. They aggressively fought back against other regulators who wished to rein in risky derivatives activities. During this administration, Summers fought back against against more aggressive financial reform measures, people familiar with the discussions say. Armed with an opportunity to get other points of view into a White House whose economic agenda has been derided by both the left and the right, progressive economists and other market participants want to see someone in Summers’s role who will pursue policies that will clean up the toxic assets lying dormant on bank balance sheets, restart lending and allow for robust job creation. Dean Baker, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, said he’s like to see economists like James K. Galbraith, a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee and presently a professor at the University of Texas at Austin; Robert Pollin, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute; Eileen Appelbaum, an economist at Baker’s CEPR and a former professor at Rutgers University, where she led the Center for Women and Work researched labor and employment issues; and Heidi Hartmann, president of the Washington-based Institute for Women’s Policy Research and a professor at The George Washington University. Baker acknowledges that his candidates “would never be considered,” adding that “I don’t want to think about who we will actually get.” Robert Johnson, director of financial reform at the New York-based Roosevelt Institute and a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, said he’d like to see Jon S. Corzine, chairman and CEO of MF Global Holdings and a former head of Goldman Sachs and governor of New Jersey; J. Bradford DeLong, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a former top Treasury official during the Clinton administration; Leo Hindery, Jr., chairman of the Economic Growth/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation and a HuffPost blogger; and Donald W. Riegle, Jr., a former U.S. senator and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and current chairman of APCO Worldwide’s government relations team. Johnson also endorsed Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas M. Hoenig. The Fed chief, who serves on the Fed’s policy-making body that sets interest rates, has advocated breaking up megabanks and forcing banks to shed their risky derivatives-dealing operations. The longtime regional Fed president has served in his current role for 19 years. Like others, Johnson said, “No more Rubinites.” Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund who presently serves as a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and as a contributing editor to The Huffington Post, said he’d like to see Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank and a former chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under Clinton; Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and columnist for the New York Times ; and Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former member of Clinton’s CEA and a vice chairman of the Fed’s Board of Governors. Market participants added other recommendations. Andrew Busch, global currency and public policy strategist at BMO Capital Markets in Chicago, said he’d like to see two veterans of the Clinton administration: Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary, or Gene Sperling, who held Summers’s job under Clinton and now works as a counselor to Geithner. “Anything that sounds or looks like Krugman will be a disaster,” Busch added. Richard Bove, one of Wall Street’s top banking analysts, told clients in a Wednesday note that the failure of Summers and the rest of the Obama team was a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes of the financial crisis. Bove, of Rochdale Securities, said the crisis was a result of years of over-consumption and underproduction in the West which caused money to flow to Asia and other big exporters, which caused debt accumulation in the U.S. and a desire for higher-yielding securities — like subprime mortgage-backed securities — elsewhere. “Larry Summers and his group failed to grasp the simple point that the U.S. must sell things to get the flow of funds to reverse back to the United States,” Bove wrote. “Instead they continued to believe that consumers should buy things. “This was a mistake that neither Germany nor Switzerland made. Thus, those economies, which emphasize production rather than consumption, expand while ours flirts with a new recession.” Bove titled his note, “Mr Summers’ Failure.” David A. Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto, shared a note with clients Wednesday that he received regarding Obama’s policies which he agreed with: “With respect to the failure of White House economic policies to turn things around (we don’t accept that the grading should be done on the premise that ‘oh, well, things would have been worse without all the government incursion and intervention’ — isn’t the jobless rate supposed to be at 7 percent by now?), we received this little ditty yesterday from a reader on the West Coast that resonated with us: Dave, You pointed out that FDR worked out the WPA at lunch one day and put Americans to work, paying them to build the Golden Gate Bridge, while Obama is mailing Americans 99 weeks of unemployment checks — the modern soup line. Well, it’s worse than that. Think about it: FDR borrowed that money, mostly from Americans, and sent it to American workers who bought American goods. Today Obama is borrowing money from China and sending it to Americans entitled to 99 weeks of no-work-pay, I mean unemployment insurance, and they are taking it over to Wal-Mart and sending it to Chinese workers. Go figure…. Regardless of whom Obama picks, Galbraith said that the “essential thing is not a shift in ideological perspective.” “It would be having a broader and more open group at the top,” Galbraith wrote in an e-mail. “I’d guess Summers took a number of positions inside the administration (we’ve seen an example with Steve Rattner’s account of the auto bailout) that were progressive by his own lights. But on certain critical issues — and especially banking, so far as I understand it — the alternatives he didn’t like were simply frozen out.” The administration, though, reportedly is keen on bringing in someone with significant business experience, like a CEO. Anne M. Mulcahy, the former CEO of Xerox who’s been lauded for her leadership atop the company, is said to be a leading contender, despite the fact that Xerox’s share price dropped 16 percent during her tenure. Other candidates include Laura D. Tyson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who separately headed both the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers under Clinton. Tyson is a longtime member of Morgan Stanley’s board of directors, a position she’s held since 1997. Joshua Rosner, managing director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co., told the Roosevelt Institute’s blog New Deal 2.0 that it’s critical for Obama to pick someone who will clean out the financial system. “While I can’t question Summers’ intent or interest in being part of the solution to this economic crisis his departure, on the eve of a double dip, demonstrates what some of us have known for a while. “Yes, the government needed to act, but the kick-the-can policies of the Obama administration have mired us more deeply in a structural morass. Hopefully the President will replace Summers and Geithner with a team that recognizes that sweeping problems under the rug undermines confidence in our economy and markets and doom us to a long contraction driven by a weak banking system. It’s time to address the troubled assets that remain on our banks balance sheets so they can be healthy enough to lend and have confidence that they will again lend.” ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Your Friendly Life Insurance Agent Could Cost You a Bundle

August 17, 2010

This is not another blog about “buy term and invest the difference.” I believe many people would be well served by purchasing whole life insurance. Buying term insurance is often a mistake. Term insurance purchasers don’t “invest the difference.” They spend it. Even if they have the discipline to invest the difference, there’s no assurance a significant portion of the invested funds will not be lost. Term insurance gives low cost protection against premature death, but it can lull you into a false sense of security. The premiums increase as you age, making it prohibitively expensive when you need life insurance the most. Insurance is a complex product. The insurance industry likes it that way. Prospective purchasers need to be aware of a number of issues including the type of coverage, company choice, identification of “too good to be true” illustrations, assessment of required coverage and time horizon. Few insurance buyers have the sophistication to sort out these issues. The right kind of whole life policy can be a valuable part of your portfolio. The problem is you are unlikely to be presented with the “right kind” by your friendly insurance agent. I recently advised a client to seek the services of a fee-only insurance adviser prior to making a decision on a life insurance policy. Most people don’t know these advisers exist. Unlike insurance agents, they agree to act as your fiduciary, meaning they can have no conflicts of interest. Your agent is likely a representative of an insurance company. Fee-only advisers are not affiliated with any insurance company or product. They act only on your behalf. You can find a list of them here. The fee-only adviser designed a policy with a death benefit of $1.2 million, but here’s what surprised me. The cash value was almost equal to the premium paid by the end of the first year. The illustrated cash value exceeded the premiums paid by the end of the fifth year. After twenty years, it was extremely unlikely any additional premiums would ever have to be paid to keep the policy in force. At that time, the policy had a very significant cash value, with an internal rate of return in excess of the after-tax return possible in a fixed income investment of similar risk. The fee-only adviser explained this was a “blended insurance policy,” which combined whole life and term into a single policy. The commissions to the selling agent were slashed to the bone, resulting in a more rapid build up of cash value. By any measure, this policy was vastly superior to the policy my client was about to purchase from his insurance agent. When I asked the fee-only adviser why the insurance agent didn’t recommend this policy, he told me “he could, but why should he commit financial suicide?” I get howls of protest from commission based insurance agents when I suggest that an independent review of their recommendations might be in the best interest of life insurance purchasers. The agents claim they always act solely in the best interest of their clients and question the value of the fee-only adviser. The fee-only advisers tell me they rarely see a recommended policy they can’t improve. They claim if you are spending more than $10,000 a year on premiums, they can save you many times their fee. In my experience, their view has proven correct. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice .

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Eight Reasons to Create a Startup While Job Hunting

July 27, 2010

If you are one of the many people who lost your job during these tough economic times, you should be working on starting your own business, in parallel with looking for that ideal replacement job. Let me explain why this is a win-win deal, no matter what the outcome. You have probably secretly always wanted to run your own show, but with a full-time job, never had the time to consider a startup. Then there was always the risk of failure, which of course doesn’t apply now since your real job is gone. Also, for most of us, not having done it before, we have no idea where or how to start. Here are my recommendations on how and why initiating a startup while looking for a job is the right thing to do: No gap in your resume. Instead of an embarrassing gap in your resume for your period out of work, you have an entry for your startup business, showing initiative, leadership, and breadth of experience. Fun learning experience. It’s more fun tackling the challenges of a startup in between job search activities, than sitting around feeling sorry for yourself and waiting for status callbacks on interviews (which seem to have gone out of style). Find a partner. Unless you are a true loner, you need someone like-minded but complementary in skills to help you with the startup plans. It’s always good to have someone to test your ideas, keep your spirits up, and hone your business skills. Now you have a reason for talking to people who may become lifelong friends. Incorporate an LLC. First, pick a name for your company and do the paperwork on starting a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). Almost anyone can handle this without professional help, and the cost is less than $100 in many states. It shows everyone you are serious, and limits your liability on any mistakes. Develop low-cost plan. Pick a startup business that you can do for minimal cost, like a services business with the skills you have. With simple software available today, pick a domain name and implement your own website. Use social networking and blogging to get your message out. You don’t need an investor for this approach. Get business cards made. Nothing says you are serious about a business like handing out professional business cards at local events and Chamber of Commerce meetings. Do them on your home computer for a few dollars. Offer to help a couple of customers free, just to get your act together and your presence known. Highlight your startup efforts in job interviews. Work your startup efforts into every job interview and application. It will definitely show off your energy and vision, and will make you a more competitive candidate for any role. Make the decision — job or business. Obviously, at some point you will need to decide whether your startup business is better than the job opportunities. That’s good because it’s always nice to have an alternative, rather than feeling that you just have to take the first dead-end job offered. There are other startup related points I could make here, like joining an existing startup as a “volunteer” for a time, just to learn more about what is required. Also, in most geographies, there are organizations springing up, and university workshops, to mentor people out of work and contemplating a startup. Get some help from them if you need it. Just remember that problems are really just opportunities in disguise. Don’t miss out on what may be the best opportunity you will have in your lifetime for a new career. Start up now.

Read the full article →

European Stocks Gain for Third Week Banco Santander Rises, BP Declines

June 12, 2010

By Julie Cruz June 12 (Bloomberg) — European stocks rose for a third week as the Federal Reserve said it would act as needed to support the recovery and economic reports and a successful government bond sale in Spain boosted investors’ confidence. Continental AG posted the biggest weekly gain in five months after raising its sales-growth forecast for this year to more than 10 percent. Banco Santander SA led European banking shares higher, rising 14 percent. BP Plc declined 9.6 percent as the U.S. government stepped up pressure on the company to clear up its Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index rose 2 percent to 249.46, extending last week’s 0.2 percent increase. The measure has still fallen 8.3 percent from this year’s high on April 15 as investors speculated that efforts to contain Europe’s debt crisis will choke off the economic recovery. The decline has left the measure trading at less than 15 times the reported earnings of its companies, near the cheapest valuation since 2008, Bloomberg data shows. “Investors are confident when money is put on the table and that’s what happened this week with the debt auction in Spain,” said Alan Lancz , president of Alan B. Lancz & Associates Inc. and director of research at LanczGlobal.com. “We’re not out of the woods yet but European investors are getting some confidence back. We had really good economic data coming from China. Valuations are low and there are a lot of quality companies.” Higher Yields Spain sold 3.9 billion euros ($4.7 billion) of a new 2013 note on June 10, with demand increasing as yields driven higher by the region’s debt crisis lured buyers. Investors bid to take up 2.1 times the amount of the securities on offer. That compared with a bid-to-cover ratio of 1.8 when three-year notes were sold in April. The Spanish benchmark IBEX 35 advanced 7.2 percent, its biggest weekly gain since July 2009, as the European Union said Spain is implementing the “necessary measures” to rein in its budget deficit. Reports this week showed China’s exports jumped 49 percent in May from a year earlier, the biggest gain in more than six years. The country’s industrial output, retail sales and fixed- asset investment climbed, while inflation accelerated to the quickest pace in 19 months. Emergency Swaps Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the U.S. central bank will act as needed to aid financial stability and economic growth after restarting emergency currency-swaps to help contain Europe’s debt crisis. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said interest rates in the 16-nation euro region are “appropriate,” indicating he sees no immediate need to cut borrowing costs any time soon. Trichet said the ECB will extend its offerings of unlimited cash and keep buying government bonds as it tries to ease tensions in money markets and fight the European debt crisis. The Bank of England kept its bond-stimulus program in place and left its benchmark interest rate at a record low to aid the economy as Prime Minister David Cameron prepares the biggest budget cuts since at least the early 1980s. National benchmark indexes advanced in all of the 18 western European markets except Greece. The U.K.’s FTSE rose 0.7 percent. Germany’s DAX surged 1.8 percent while France’s CAC 40 jumped 2.9 percent. Banks Rally European banking shares rose 4.8 percent this week, among the best performers in the Stoxx 600. Santander, Spain’s biggest lender, surged 14 percent, its biggest weekly gain in 15 months. Chairman Emilio Botin told shareholders he expects 2010 profit to be “similar” to last year in a rejoinder to investors ditching Spanish bank stocks on concern the country may fail to fix its finances. Announcements of banking mergers in Spain bolstered speculation of more combinations and an improvement in the industry’s financial ratios. Banco de Sabadell SA surged 10 percent as it announced it is considering taking over rival Banco Guipuzcoano SA. Caja Madrid and Bancaja aim to create Spain’s biggest savings bank amid government efforts to shore up the country’s financial system. Banco Popular Espanol SA rallied 12 percent, while Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA both gained 10 percent. Carmakers Advance European carmakers and car-parts makers posted the best performance in the Stoxx 600, led by gains in Continental AG , which rallied 12 percent. Europe’s second-biggest car-parts maker previously forecast sales growth of as much as 10 percent. “We now expect, on the basis of the first five months, that we can reach more than that,” Hannes Boekhoff , a spokesman for the Hannover, Germany-based company, said. Construction companies posted the second-best performance in the Stoxx 600. Citigroup Inc. recommended buying the shares of Cie. De Saint-Gobain SA, pushing shares of Europe’s biggest supplier of building materials 11 percent higher. The brokerage also lifted its stance on Holcim Ltd., which rose 4.3 percent. Solarworld AG surged 18 percent, its biggest weekly gain since 2008, as analysts upgraded the solar company’s shares. German solar-panel makers are suffering less from Chinese competition as the euro falls and makes imports more expensive for German buyers, Sven Kuerten , an analyst at DZ Bank AG, said in a note to investors on June 11. DZ Bank and Societe Generale both raised their recommendations to “buy” on the stock. Oil Spill BP declined 9.6 percent after slumping to a 13-year low on June 10. The stock has fallen for eight consecutive weeks, the longest losing streak since 2007. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron will talk to President Barack Obama about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico today after pressure mounted on the British leader to defend London-based BP against criticism in the U.S. The stock is down 39 percent since April 20, the day of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion that killed 11 workers and triggered the worst oil leak in U.S. history, wiping more than 51 billion pounds ($75 billion) off the company’s market value. Hellenic Telecommunications Organization SA posted the biggest decline in the Stoxx 600 after saying it will propose a dividend of 19 cents a share on 2009 earnings, revising down earlier plans to pay a dividend of 50 cents apiece. Separately, the Athens-based company said a special tax on earnings will result in a 96 million-euro ($114.8 million) cost this year. The shares tumbled 15 percent. To contact the reporter on this story: Julie Cruz in Frankfurt at jcruz6@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Lloyd Chapman: New In-depth Report Challenges Obama Small Business Track Record

May 26, 2010

The American Small Business League (ASBL) has concluded an examination and report on President Barack Obama’s track record for small businesses, and uncovered a dramatic disparity between President Obama’s rhetoric and his actions. In its report the ASBL outlines a series of major failures by the Obama Administration. These failures represent broken campaign promises and failures by the administration to recognize the needs of America’s chief job creators: Small businesses. The ASBL investigation was spurred by the administration’s refusal to stop the diversion of more than $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts to some of the largest corporations in the United States and Europe. Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have uncovered billions of dollars in federal small business contracts diverted to corporate giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Dell Computer, Xerox, Office Depot, Starwood Hotels, Raytheon, General Dynamics and French giant Thales Communications. The ASBL’s report found that the Obama Administration has: 1. Failed to adopt any policies or legislation to stop the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants. 2. Reduced overall transparency in federal small business contracting data by eliminating fields such as the “small business flag” and “parent DUNS number.” 3. Failed to restore the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) budget and staffing to pre-Bush Administration levels. 4. Failed to implement the recommendations of his campaign’s small business advisory council, which provided solutions to a wide array of small business problems. 5. Failed to stop the dismantling of minority set-aside programs. During the Obama Administration’s first months the Rothe Decision virtually nullified small business programs for minorities. 6. Failed to provide assistance to major small business lender CIT during the summer of 2009. 7. Failed to allocate more than 3 percent of stimulus funds to small businesses. 8. Destroyed a decade’s worth of federal contracting data used to identify fraudulent contractors. 9. Reduced the availability of documents on small business contracting programs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 10. Failed to curb widespread fraud in veteran-owned small business programs. 11. Failed to bring an end to the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program, which allows prime contractors to circumvent their small business subcontracting goals. 12. Failed to implement the 5 percent set-aside goal for women-owned small businesses. If you quit listening to what he says and just look at what he’s done, these are not the actions of a pro-small business president. Click here to view a copy of the ASBL’s report: http://www.asbl.com/documents/20100526_ASBL_AnalysisObamaSB.pdf

Read the full article →

Trichet Wants a `Quantum Leap’ in Way Euro-Area Nations Determine Budgets

May 15, 2010

By Richard Weiss and Mark Deen May 15 (Bloomberg) — European Central Bank President Jean- Claude Trichet called for a “quantum leap” in the way euro- area nations set their budgets and defended his decision to buy bonds from debt-saddled countries such as Greece and Portugal. “There is a need for a quantum leap in the governance of the euro area,” Trichet said in an interview with Spiegel magazine published on the ECB website . “There need to be major improvements to prevent bad behavior, to ensure effective implementation of the recommendations made by peers and ensure real and effective sanctions in the case of breaches,” he said. Trichet, who said the current crisis may be worse than the Great Depression, is fending off critics who say the ECB caved into political pressure as the sovereign-debt crisis stirred speculation that Europe’s single currency may break up. While the 16 members of the euro share a common monetary policy, members are responsible for their own fiscal decisions. That allowed Greece’s budget deficit to reach almost 14 percent of its gross domestic product, exceeding the EU’s 3 percent limit without penalty. Germany’s is 3.2 percent of its GDP. Trichet’s move came in tandem with a decision by European Union nations to push through a $1 trillion aid package to support members of the club who face the highest borrowing costs. The ECB’s debt purchases helped push down two-year bond yields over the course of the past week, making it less expensive for indebted nations to finance themselves. ‘Weak’ Governments The euro fell to its lowest level since the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc . this week, depreciating 3.1 percent to $1.2358 from $1.2755 on May 7. Trichet rejected the suggestion that the ECB gave up its independence when it agreed to buy government bonds. “That is ridiculous,” Trichet said in the interview. “Just who has been weak over the past few months? It was not the ECB. The governments with their high debts were weak.” The ECB plans to “sterilize” all bond purchases by withdrawing liquidity elsewhere in the system, thereby limiting the overall money supply, he said. Trichet criticized Greece for being too slow to cut its budget deficit and said the Frankfurt-based central bank’s actions were justified by the crisis in financial markets. “It is clear that since September 2008 we have been facing the most difficult situation since the Second World War, perhaps even since the First World War,” Trichet said. “We have experienced and are experiencing truly dramatic times.” Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou , who more than doubled the estimate of the budget shortfall when he took office last year, has pledged to cut the gap to 3 percent by 2014 in order to win aid from other euro countries and the IMF. The Greek government currently has debts equivalent to 115 percent of gross domestic product, and that ratio will rise to about 150 percent before it starts falling, economists say. To contact the reporter on this story: Richard Weiss in Frankfurt at rweiss5@bloomberg.net . Mark Deen in Paris at markdeen@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

UnitedHealth, WellPoint Fight Obama’s Mandate on Medical Costs

April 13, 2010

By Drew Armstrong April 13 (Bloomberg) — A U.S. mandate forcing insurers led by UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc. to spend 85 percent of revenue from premiums on medical care is the newest front in the battle between the Obama administration and companies over industry profits. In 2009, UnitedHealth spent 82.3 percent of revenue from premiums to pay customers’ medical expenses and WellPoint spent 82.6 percent, according to company filings. While individual insurers now decide what categories to include in this ratio, the health law signed in March demands that all companies define medical costs the same way beginning in 2011. Many insurers include only customer claims in their current ratios. They want to keep the number low to impress investors, said Sandy Praeger , of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners . Under the new law, lobbyists would include technology expenses, wellness programs and pay-for-performance incentives. That would make it easier to reach the 85 percent threshold, and free up revenue to boost profit. “This has the potential to be a big issue for the industry next year,” said Carl McDonald , an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York, in an April 8 note to clients. “Because the details of the calculation are left up to an administration that has been blatantly anti-managed care, it will be difficult for many commercial plans to outperform until this is cleared up.” The law sets two thresholds for 2011: 85 percent for policies involving large companies, and 80 percent for small groups and individuals. Input From States State officials represented by the Kansas City, Missouri- based insurance commissioners’ group, or NAIC, were initially asked by U.S. regulators to recommend by the end of 2010 what should be covered under the thresholds. That timing was shortened yesterday to June 1. Lobbyist organizations led by America’s Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, a Washington-based group representing 1,300 insurers, and the Chicago-based Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, with 39 members, are negotiating over how to shape the bill, Praeger said. “We’ve begun the discussions with some of the industry, or they’ve begun the discussion with us, because they’re nervous about how this is going to be defined,” Praeger said in a telephone interview. “They want to be able to say — when they go to Wall Street — that they’re really reserving a lot for profit. When they come to us they want to say the reverse, that they’re paying a lot for medical.” Final regulations for the provision will be approved by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius . Company Shares UnitedHealth, based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, was unchanged at $32.26 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday. The company, the biggest U.S. insurer by sales, jumped 35 percent in the last year, boosted by the law’s promise to add millions of customers. WellPoint rose 8 cents to $61.34. Insurers believe wellness programs and technology systems to manage records should be categorized as medical care because they help improve overall health, said Justine Handelman, executive director for policy for the Blue Cross group. Robert Zirkelbach , a spokesman for AHIP, said his group’s members are concerned that refusing to include wellness programs under the thresholds may lower interest among companies in supporting these efforts, hurting consumers rather helping them. “We want to make sure that, however the regulations are structured, they aren’t going to disrupt those types of initiatives,” Zirkelbach said. Insurers have already made some changes in how they classify costs on their own. WellPoint Change WellPoint , the largest U.S. insurer by enrollment, last month announced it would count nurse call-in centers and wellness programs as medical costs. That move increased the Indianapolis-based company’s projected ratio to 84.3 percent in 2010 from 82.6 percent in 2009, the company said. Kristin Binns , a spokeswoman for WellPoint, said in an e- mail that company officials are “closely watching the NAIC recommendation process, and are looking at the impacts depending on how various expenses are classified.” UnitedHealth spokesman Tyler Mason said the insurer was “following discussions closely.’ He declined further comment.      Cigna CEO David Cordani said he was confident the administration will allow insurers to count spending on nurses who advise customers as a medical expense. Sebelius and congressional staff indicated a willingness to do so in conversations over the past six weeks, Cordani said in an interview yesterday. More Patient Value Democrats want to use the new rules to deliver on their promise that patients will get more value from their premiums, Senator Jay Rockefeller , a West Virginia Democrat, has said. President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress repeatedly criticized insurers in the run-up to the law’s signing last month. They attacked WellPoint’s proposed 39 percent premium increase on some California customers as a preview of what might happen if the overhaul wasn’t passed. The regulations will require “insurance companies to dedicate more of the premiums dollars they collect to actual care instead of profits, bonuses, advertising and other overhead costs,” said Nicholas Papas, a Sebelius spokesman, in an e- mailed statement. Robert Laszewski , a Washington, D.C. policy analyst who consults with the industry, predicts that the insurance commissioners’ recommendations won’t put excessive pressure on industry profits. “This medical-cost ratio is a game,” he said. “What the regulators are now going to do is come up with rules of the game,” Laszewski said. “Hire some lobbyists and make some really good arguments.” No Political Pressure Praeger said there has been no political pressure from the Obama administration to squeeze insurers. “We would not do that,” she said. “We want to be accurate and the authority and the expert. We can’t get caught up in the political side.” The insurance commissioners will focus their recommendations on making sure there is a consistent and fair definition, she said, that “doesn’t get gamed.” To contact the reporters on this story: Drew Armstrong in Washington at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Cote, Rivlin Said to Be Among Obama’s Picks for Deficit-Cutting Commission

February 26, 2010

By Hans Nichols and Roger Runningen Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — Honeywell International Inc . Chief Executive Officer David Cote and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alice Rivlin will be named today by President Barack Obama to a commission on cutting the federal deficit , an administration official said. The president also is picking Andy Stern , president of the Service Employees International Union, and former Young & Rubicam Brands CEO Ann Fudge for the panel, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity before the official announcement. Obama last week named former Democratic White House official Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson as co-chairmen of the commission. The White House appointees will be joined by 12 other panel members chosen by Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. The 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility was created by Obama to come up with recommendations for steps to reduce the federal deficit, which is forecast to hit a record $1.6 trillion this year. The budget shortfall may be an issue in November elections that will determine control of Congress. The commission may recommend tax increases, spending cuts or a combination of both to reduce U.S. deficits in the next five years to about 3 percent of the economy from an estimated 10.6 percent now. Under current projections, the budget will show a deficit of $752 billion, accounting for 3.9 percent of the economy, in 2015. “Everything’s on the table, that’s how this thing’s going to work,” Obama said Feb. 18 after signing the order to create the commission. Senate Appointees Democratic Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana were named to the panel Feb. 23 by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid . Republicans and House Democrats haven’t yet named their members. Obama signed an executive order creating the panel after lawmakers from both parties said a special commission would be needed to tackle the problem of the budget deficit. The president’s order can’t force Congress to vote on the recommendations, though Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have promised to bring the commission’s proposals up for votes. While the panel may release some details of its conclusions before the November congressional elections, the full report won’t be made public until Dec. 1. Still, it gives lawmakers and the administration an answer to voter anxiety about efforts to revive the U.S. economy and while tackling shortfalls in the budget. Commission Members Cote, 57, a graduate of the University of New Hampshire in Durham, has been chairman and CEO of Honeywell since 2002. He was named by administration officials as one of four CEOs who Obama most admires, and he was one of 17 executives who dined with Obama and other administration officials at the White House Feb. 23. Rivlin, 78, a former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, currently serves as a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington and is a visiting professor at Georgetown University. The founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, Rivlin graduated from Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania and received her Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Stern, 59, is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and has served as president of the 2.2 million- member SEIU since 1996. Fudge, 58, was CEO of Young & Rubicam Brands from 2003 to 2006 and served on the boards of the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. She graduated from Simmons College in Boston and the Harvard Business School. Simpson and Bowles, in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt ” last week, said the panel would consider a consumption or value-added tax as a way of reducing the federal debt, as well as changes to the Social Security retirement system. To contact the reporters on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at Hnichols2@bloomberg.net ; Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Grantham’s `Horrifically Early’ Forecasts Are Challenge for GMO, Followers

February 26, 2010

By Charles Stein Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) — Jeremy Grantham warned in January 2000 that U.S. equities were “more overpriced than at any time in the last 70 years due to the massive overpricing of technology and especially dot-com stocks.” By the end of 2002, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index had fallen 40 percent and technology shares were down 73 percent. The forecast didn’t help his firm, Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo Co., because he’d been bearish since 1997. Assets declined 45 percent in the late 1990s as customers sought out better- performing mutual funds that liked the technology stocks Grantham disdained. Grantham said in an interview that his negative calls are often so early that investors who acted on them gave up gains before prices peaked. He recommended avoiding Japanese stocks more than two years before they started falling at the end of 1989. While his timing doesn’t deter fans like former Harvard University endowment manager Jack Meyer , it requires a delicate balancing act by GMO, which oversees $107 billion. “We lost business like it was going out of style,” the 71-year-old Grantham said of his dot-com prediction at a Jan. 28 speech to investment advisers in Boston, the home of GMO, which he co-founded in 1977. GMO’s funds usually don’t fully adopt his recommendations, or hedge their bets, underscoring the difference between being a star strategist and successful money manager. That’s true for the fund Grantham works most closely with, GMO Global Balanced Asset Allocation , which oversees $3.1 billion. Setting Off Alarms The tension between acting on a long-term vision and keeping clients happy in the short run is a fact of life for all money managers, said Charles Lieberman , chief investment officer at Advisors Capital Management LLC in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, which oversees about $190 million. “The issue is: Are you willing to stick your neck out and how far?” he said in a telephone interview. The tension is heightened at GMO, where Grantham’s warnings of investment bubbles have at times sent customers packing for firms with a more upbeat view of the markets. “If we are too aggressive, and we don’t get it right, we run the risk of being fired,” Ben Inker , GMO’s head of asset allocation, said in a telephone interview. Two of Grantham’s most recent forecasts were right — and timely. Emerging Markets In 2007, he wrote in his newsletter that all asset classes were overvalued and it was time to sell high-risk securities. GMO’s $2 billion Emerging Country Debt Fund , which held high- yielding securities from countries such as Venezuela and Argentina, decided to stick with those investments in 2008. “Every bet we made turned out to be wrong,” Thomas Cooper, the fund’s co-manager, recalled in an August interview, pointing out that investors sought out safer securities during the financial crisis. The fund lost 33 percent in 2008, and the following April GMO was fired by the Massachusetts state pension system as manager of $230 million in emerging-market debt. The fund bounced back, returning 50 percent in 2009. Its 14 percent annual return over the past 10 years made it the best performing bond fund, according to Chicago-based Morningstar Inc. “Jeremy has been a great long-term investor,” said Meyer, who ran Harvard’s endowment for 15 years until 2006, when he left the Cambridge, Massachusetts, university, to start Convexity Capital Management LP, a Boston-based fund manager. Grantham was ahead of the pack in the 1990s identifying the value of emerging-market stocks, inflation-adjusted securities and timber, Meyer said in a telephone interview. ‘No Justice’ In March 2009, when the S&P 500 index bottomed out at 676, Grantham wrote that fair value for the benchmark of the largest U.S. stocks was 900, or 33 percent higher. By July, with the index above that mark, Grantham concluded U.S. stocks had become too expensive again. “After 20 years of more or less permanent overpricing, we get five months of underpricing,” he told newsletter readers. “There is no justice in life.” The fair value of the S&P 500 today is 850, 23 percent below yesterday’s close of 1103.94, said Grantham. He arrives at that valuation by assuming a long-term average price-to-earnings ratio of about 15 for U.S. stocks and applying it to a long-term average for profit margins. Grantham is chief investment strategist at GMO, whose assets have risen almost fivefold since 2000. Its more than 40 mutual funds usually require a minimum investment of $10 million and are aimed mainly at institutions such as pension funds and endowments, according to the firm’s Web site. The firm also acts as a sub-adviser on several retail mutual funds. Drawing A Crowd In his appearance in Boston, Grantham, who is whippet-thin with a full head of gray hair, wore a dark suit and a pink tie with giraffes. Until the past few years, he played in a weekly soccer game to stay in shape. Over the course of 45 minutes, he poked fun at the investment business and himself. Recalling the five-month period in which he considered U.S. stocks inexpensive, Grantham said, “I refer to it as my very short life as a bull.” After the speech, more than a dozen advisers gathered around Grantham, peppering him with questions about everything from China to the U.S. budget deficit. “He’s got the perspective of someone who has been in the battle for a long time,” said Robert Henkel, an adviser from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, explaining why he sought out Grantham for a private conversation. Current Outlook Grantham’s favorite asset class today is high-quality U.S. stocks, companies defined by high, stable returns and low debt. The allocation fund had 31 percent of its money in that category at year-end, sometimes called blue chips, according to the GMO Web site. In the interview, he said he expects such stocks to return an average of 6.8 percent a year over the next seven years, compared with 1.3 percent for all large-cap U.S. stocks. Emerging-market stocks may rise about 4 percent annually in the next seven years, as investor enthusiasm for economic growth in developing countries carries the stocks to unsustainable levels, Grantham said. “Why not go along for the ride?” he said. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index returned an average of 22 percent in the past seven years, compared with a gain of 5.5 percent by the S&P 500 index. U.S. government bonds will return 1.1 percent a year over the seven-year period, according to the latest GMO forecast. The Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. Treasury Master Index rose 4.3 percent from 2003 through 2009. Grantham said he expects a difficult, not disastrous, period for the economy and investments. “It will feel like the 1970s,” he said. “One step forward, one step back.” ‘Flaky Little Companies’ Grantham was raised in Yorkshire, England, and has a bachelor’s degree from Sheffield University. His father was a civil engineer who died in World War II. “Yorkshiremen have a well-deserved reputation for a highly developed sense of value,” he wrote in a follow-up e-mail. “In other words, they’re cheap.” Grantham came to the United States to go to Harvard Business School in Boston. Following graduation in 1966, he spent several years as a self-described speculator, borrowing money to invest in “flaky little companies I hardly knew,” he said in the interview. After he suffered large losses in 1969, “it brought out my deeper instincts to be a contrarian,” he said. Dean LeBaron That year Grantham co-founded Batterymarch Financial Management Inc., a Boston firm that is now owned by Baltimore- based Legg Mason Inc. At Batterymarch, Grantham and co-founder Dean LeBaron were among the first to offer clients the chance to invest in indexes, according to the book “Common Sense on Mutual Funds” by John Bogle, who started Vanguard Group Inc., the Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based mutual-fund firm. In 1997, Grantham and his wife created a foundation to protect the global environment. In 2007, the couple donated $23.6 million to Imperial College London to establish an institute on climate change. “This is the most important economic and social issue of the 21st century,” Grantham wrote in the e-mail. Grantham, as a member of GMO’s asset-allocation team, makes recommendations to the firm’s 114 investment professionals. They are free to accept or reject the advice. GMO Global Balanced Asset Allocation fund returned 6.8 percent in the past decade, a performance topped by 4 out of 50 rival funds, according to data from Chicago-based Morningstar Inc. Focus on Benchmark The GMO fund attempts to beat its benchmark, a blend of 65 percent global stocks and 35 percent U.S. bonds, by 2 percent to 3 percent a year, according to the firm’s Web site. The benchmark returned less than 1 percent a year in the past decade, according to the GMO Web site. The fund will make “significant” bets, within limits, on asset classes such as emerging-market stocks or real estate, said Inker, who is a co-manager. The fund generally keeps at least 45 percent to 50 percent of its money in stocks, he said. “We are as aggressive as we can get away with, but not more aggressive,” said Inker. Grantham is best known for his quarterly newsletters, which have appeared since 1999. The publications, which run as many as 18 pages, represent his personal views on the stock market, sprinkled with acerbic comments on subjects such as private equity and Federal Reserve policy. Last October, he compared giving Ben Bernanke a second term as Fed chairman to reappointing the captain of the Titantic. Newsletter Fans The newsletters have a following among investors large and small. Chuck Levin, a financial planner in Wayland, Massachusetts, admires them for their “salient and clear thoughts on investment.” Levin doesn’t necessarily follow Grantham’s advice, particularly when the strategist is bearish on stocks. “I am not going to tell my clients to put all their money into cash,” he said in a telephone interview. “Who has the courage to do that?” Jack Ablin , who helps manage $55 billion as chief investment officer at Chicago-based Harris Bank, regularly reads Grantham. “When he gets bullish, that’s when you have to sit up and take notice,” Ablin said in a telephone interview. Jeremy Siegel , who has squared off with Grantham in a series of bull-bear debates over the past decade, said Grantham can cost investors money by being so early with his calls. “There have been periods when he would have kept people out of the market while it was still rising,” said Siegel, a finance professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and author of the book “Stocks for The Long Run.” No ‘Permabear’ Grantham dismisses his “permabear’” label, saying that in 2000 he was bullish on emerging-market stocks, real estate investment trusts and inflation-adjusted bonds. GMO data show that the three asset classes returned between 4.9 percent and 8.1 percent a year in the 10 years ended Dec. 31. The S&P 500 lost 1 percent a year over the same stretch. Looking back on more than 40 years in the investment business, Grantham summed up his career this way: “We win all the bets but we are horrifically early,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Charles Stein in Boston at cstein4@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Toyota Prius Keeps Consumer Reports’ Environmental Title Following Recall

February 23, 2010

By Jeff Plungis Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — Toyota Motor Corp. ’s Prius retained its title as Consumer Reports magazine’s top pick for environmentally friendly vehicles two weeks after the automaker recalled 437,000 hybrids to fix a brake software flaw. The carmaker’s $76,572 Lexus LS460L was named best overall vehicle among more than 280 autos tested, the publication said at a news conference in Washington today. The Prius was ranked best “green” car for the seventh straight year. The Consumer Reports rankings, used by U.S. car buyers, may help Toyota weather recalls now totaling more than 8 million vehicles worldwide and widening probes into its handling of the faults. A federal grand jury has asked for documents related to unintended acceleration and braking in the Prius, and three congressional panels are planning hearings, starting with a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee today. Consumer Reports also named General Motors Co.’s Chevrolet Traverse as the best sport-utility vehicle and GM’s Silverado as the top pickup. Nissan Motor Co. also had two recommended models, the Altima sedan and Infiniti G37 sports car. Other favored vehicles included the Mazda Motor Corp. Mazda5, Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Subaru Forester, Volkswagen AG’s GTI and Hyundai Motor Co.’s Elantra SE. Suspended Sales Toyota’s Highlander and RAV4 SUVs were dropped from the magazine’s top-pick list because the company has suspended sales of the models as part of the recalls, said David Champion , deputy technical director at the magazine’s automotive test center. The magazine will reevaluate the decision when sales resume, he said. In a separate ranking of best values, Consumer Reports again singled out the Prius and the Honda Motor Co. Ltd.’s Fit small cars as the top two scoring models among more than 280 tested. In response to the Toyota recalls, Consumers Union, the Yonkers, New York-based publisher of Consumer Reports , said today that U.S. regulators should require simpler controls that allow drivers to turn off car engines in an emergency. Technical experts at Consumer Reports found that in panic situations vehicle controls such as ignition shut-offs may not operate the way drivers expect, Champion said in an interview. The push-button ignition found on Toyota models such as the Prius was particularly difficult, Champion said. Drivers have to hold down the button for three seconds to turn the ignition off, he said. The vehicles should be redesigned so that pushing it multiple times turns the car off, Champion said. “Even most of us on the test track didn’t realize you had to hold the button,” Champion said. Policy Recommendations Evaluation of the recalled cars showed some issues that should have standardized fixes, Champion said. Automakers should be required to design accelerator pedals to clear floor mats with expected normal usage, he said. Consumer Reports hasn’t seen any unintended acceleration in its test cars, Champion said. In a set of policy recommendations, Consumer Reports said the government should lift the current $16.4 million cap on civil penalties for failure to recall vehicles as required by law. The relatively low amounts may be considered a “cost of doing business,” and not a deterrent, the magazine said. In addition to the 437,000 hybrids being recalled for brakes flaws, Toyota is recalling about 8 million vehicles on five continents to repair accelerator pedals and pedals that can be trapped by floor mats. Toyota “all but ignored pleas from consumers” to examine complaints of sudden unintended acceleration, Representative Bart Stupak , chairman of the Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, said at today’s hearing. The company “misled the American public” by saying they thoroughly examined electronics as a possible cause, said Stupak, a Michigan Democrat. To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Plungis in Washington at jplungis@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Obama Said to Be Considering Honeywell Chief David Cote for Deficit Panel

February 22, 2010

By Nicholas Johnston Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. President Barack Obama is considering Honeywell International Inc. chief executive officer David Cote for the new federal deficit commission, an administration official said on the condition of anonymity because no decision has been made. Also under consideration are former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alice Rivlin and Andy Stern , president of the Service Employees International Union , the official said. Obama named former Democratic White House official Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson to head the new 18-member bipartisan commission charged with suggesting steps to reduce the federal deficit , which was a record $1.6 trillion this year. Obama gets to select six members of the commission, with congressional Republicans and Democrats each getting to pick six. The commission’s recommendations are due Dec. 1. Simpson and Bowles, in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt ,” said the panel would consider a consumption or value-added tax as a way of reducing the federal debt, as well as changes to the Social Security retirement system. “We’re going to have to slay sacred cows,” Simpson said. Report After Elections The panel might release some details of its conclusions before the November congressional elections. The full report won’t be made public until after voters go to the polls. Obama signed an executive order creating the panel on Feb. 18, after lawmakers from both parties said a special commission would be needed to tackle the problem of the budget deficit. Obama’s order can’t force Congress to vote on the recommendations. The commission’s goal is to bring the federal budget deficit down to 3 percent of the economy by 2015, and put the budget in balance except for payments on debt. This year’s budget deficit is 10.6 percent of the economy. Under current projections, the budget will show a deficit of $752 billion, accounting for 3.9 percent of the economy, in 2015. “Everything’s on the table, that’s how this thing’s going to work,” Obama said after creating the commission. To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at njohnston3@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Leo W. Gerard: The Message of Massachusetts: Jobs

January 22, 2010

Bill Clinton saw it clearly when he was running for President against Bush I. It became his mantra: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Clinton wanted to reform health insurance too. But he understood that during a recession, the first priority is jobs. Politicians and commentators continue to blather obtusely about the meaning of Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley’s loss to a Republican in a heavily Democratic state. Like Coakley and her advisors, they’ve failed to see the obvious, failed to learn from Clinton’s victory: It’s the economy, stupid. Poll results show that Massachusetts voters punished Coakley – and Democrats — for neglecting the issue most vital to them: jobs. If politicians had studied earlier polls or attempted to actually get in touch with mainstream, Main Street Americans, or just listened to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka’s Jan. 11 address at the Washington Press Club, they’d have known to focus on jobs. The message of Massachusetts should be clear: If Democrats want to save their own jobs in the mid-term elections this fall, they must create jobs now. A poll taken as far back as the first week in December exposed voters’ anger over the economy. The bipartisan Battleground Poll showed this: A huge majority of those surveyed ranked improving the economy and jobs as the most important tasks for Congress. It was 40 percent, compared to healthcare reform, at just 15 percent. Here’s what pollster Celinda Lake said about the results: “The number one thing Democrats have to do is prove they really have a jobs program and an economic program that is going to sell on Main Street.” That was a month before the Massachusetts vote. In the meantime, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics announced unemployment numbers for December – and they were worse in 43 states than they had been in November. Joblessness in Michigan, a high population heartland state, was the highest in the country at 14.6 percent. Only the rates in two other states, Rhode Island – 12.9 percent — and South Carolina — 12.6 percent, beat that in one of the dozen largest economies in the world – California. There it was 12.4, significantly higher than the U.S. average of 10 percent. People are hurting. Pay attention, politicians. Pay attention. They didn’t. In the Massachusetts race, they were talking about terrorism and baseball. In a Research 2000 poll done for MoveOn.org, 95 percent of Massachusetts residents surveyed ranked the economy as either important or very important to their candidate choice. Research 2000 questioned 1,000 registered voters – half of whom voted for Republican Scott Brown and half of whom did not vote at all. Among those who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010, 51 percent said they believed Democratic policies helped Wall Street more than Main Street. It’s the economy, stupid. The Main Street economy. Similary, in a Hart Research Associates poll conducted on election night in Massachusetts, 79 percent of voters said electing a candidate who would strengthen the economy and create more good jobs was the single most important factor in their decision. The most crucial quality for a candidate, they said: Someone who would fix the economy. The Bush II Great Recession is more than two years old now. Workers are frightened and angry. They see bailouts for Wall Street, big bonuses for bankers and unemployment continuing to rise. They will vent their frustration on politicians. Massachusetts showed it. Trumka warned about it earlier this month in his talk at the Press Club: “At this moment, the voices of America’s working women and men must be heard in Washington – not the voices of bankers and speculators for whom it always seems to be the best of times, but the voices of those for whom the New Year brings pink slips and givebacks, hollowed-out health care, foreclosures and pension freezes – the roll call of an economy that long ago stopped working for most of us.” He went on: “Working people want an American economy that works for them – that creates good jobs, where wealth is fairly shared. . .” He recommended immediate implementation of the AFL-CIO’s five-point jobs creation program – a plan that would produce 4 million jobs and includes dramatically increasing federal infrastructure and green jobs investments and direct lending of the refunded bank bailout money to small and medium sized businesses that can’t get credit because of the financial crisis. Just as important is implementation of the recommendations in the Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing report issued by the White House manufacturing task force in December. That report contains concrete measures to revive manufacturing in the U.S. to generate real wealth, not the illusory paper assets counterfeited on Wall Street. Trumka called for immediate action, not going slow, not taking half steps. Those who seek delay are “harming millions of unemployed Americans and their families,” he said, and jeopardizing economic recovery. He ended with this warning: “the reality is that when unemployment is 10 percent and rising, working people will not stand for tokenism. We will not vote for politicians who think they can push a few crumbs our way and then continue the failed economic policies of the last 30 years.” Workers executed that warning in Massachusetts. What Americans want is jobs.

Read the full article →

ECB, EU to Visit Greece This Week to Discuss Deficit, Greek Official Says

January 4, 2010

By Christos Ziotis and Natalie Weeks Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) — European finance officials will travel to Greece this week to discuss the government’s plans to cut the European Union’s largest budget deficit, a Greek Finance Ministry official said. European Central Bank and European Commission officials will visit Athens on Jan. 6, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official also said Greece will submit its plan to push the deficit below the EU’s limit toward the end of January. The commission, the EU executive in Brussels, said it will evaluate Greece’s budget proposal, known as a stability program, in preparation for discussion by EU finance ministers next month. The finance chiefs will meet in Brussels on Feb. 15-16. “We will make our recommendations in time for finance ministers to adopt the opinion for the stability program and the recommendation for deficit in February,” Amelia Torres, spokeswoman for EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia, said today in Brussels. The commission is seeking submission of the plan “as soon as possible,” Torres said. While the deadline is the end of month, Greece has committed to sending it “early in January,” she said. “We will obviously need to assess it.” The government of Prime Minister George Papandreou , which came to power in October promising higher spending and wages, is trying to persuade investors it can cut its deficit from 12.7 percent of output last year, the highest in the 27-nation EU, to below the EU’s 3 percent limit by 2013. Papandreou has said he is determined to turn around the country’s economy and that a default is “simply out of the question.” Three Times Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou last month lifted the 2010 deficit-reduction target to 4 percentage points of gross domestic product from 3.6 points previously. That would lower the deficit next year to 8.7 percent of gross domestic product, still almost three times the EU limit. Greece’s credit rating was cut one level to BBB+ from A-on Dec. 16 by Standard & Poor’s, which threatened further action unless the government tackles the budget shortfall. Fitch Ratings on Dec. 8 cut Greek debt to BBB+. Papandreou said he was determined to cut the deficit without hurting wage-earners and the poor. He vowed to reduce bureaucracy by eliminating two layers of government administration and to clamp down on tax evasion. To contact the reporters on this story: Christos Ziotis in Athens at cziotis@bloomberg.net ; Natalie Weeks in Athens nweeks2@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Congressmen To Call For Break-Up Of Biggest Banks

December 7, 2009

Five House Democrats will call this week for a return to a Depression-era law that separated Wall Street investment banking from Main Street commercial banking. If adopted, the measure would give banks one year to choose between being commercial banks or investment banks. The nation’s biggest — those now commonly referred to as “too big to fail” — would be broken up. The Obama administration opposes the measure. The amendment’s five co-sponsors — Maurice Hinchey of New York, John Conyers of Michigan, Peter DeFazio of Oregon, Jay Inslee of Washington, and John Tierney of Massachusetts – want to restore the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibited commercial banks from underwriting stocks and bonds. The act was repealed in 1999 at the urging of, among others, Larry Summers, now President Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser. The five congressman all voted against the repeal then — and now they want it back. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is one of a number of financial luminaries calling for at least a partial return to Glass-Steagall. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page also endorsed the concept in a recent editorial as a way to “reduce moral hazard” and “limit certain kinds of risk-taking by institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits.” The law’s repeal ushered in an era marked by big banks getting even bigger. The country’s four largest — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo – now control more than half of the nation’s mortgages, two-thirds of credit cards and two-fifths of all bank deposits. And because their deposits are taxpayer-insured, there’s a growing concern that they will feel overly confident about making risky bets through their investment arms because they know that should they suffer huge losses, taxpayers will ultimately be there to bail them out. The five Democrats face big obstacles, including their own leadership and the Obama administration. Three weeks ago on Capitol Hill, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said : “I would not support reinstating Glass-Steagall. And I don’t actually believe that the end of Glass-Steagall played a significant role in the cause of this crisis.” But in an interview Monday, Hinchey said that “some of the people around our president are not giving him the appropriate advice.” He added: “And contrary to that, the wrong advice is coming forward — and being implemented.” DeFazio has called for Geithner to resign. In a Nov. 17 opinion piece in the Detroit Free Press, Conyers wrote : Without Glass-Steagall serving as a critical check on the power of banks, the floodgates of speculation were opened. The banks leveraged personal savings accounts to trade in exotic securities and assets. Banks, insurance companies, and investment firms merged at an astounding pace. No longer content to simply finance home mortgages, these new hybrids began creating and selling securities based off of the speculative value of shaky mortgages. The banks took on more risk because risk was profitable. No one paid much attention to what would happen when the speculation bubble burst. Conyers also argues that the administration is taking the wrong approach. Currently, the Obama administration is working with both houses of Congress on legislation aimed at preventing a…major calamity in the banking industry. I am concerned, however, that their preferred method seems to focus on empowering our financial regulators to manage and mitigate some level of “acceptable risk” within the present system, instead of correcting the structural flaws that make a collapse likely to recur. Conyers and Hinchey point to Volcker, among others, as being on the right side of this debate. In response to reports that the administration is marginalizing Volcker and disregarding his recommendations, Hinchey lashed out: “He’s someone we should be listening to. It’s very discouraging and annoying and angering to me that someone like him is not being listened to.” But there’s a reason for that, of course. As Hinchey said Monday, “I think there is excessive influence of some banks on the legislative process in this Congress.” Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter !

Read the full article →

Stocks in Europe Snap Two-Week Drop as Economies Improve; Randstad Rallies

December 5, 2009

By Julie Cruz Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) — European stocks gained after two weeks of losses following government reports that showed manufacturing in China and Europe expanded and employers in the U.S. cut the fewest jobs in November since the recession began. Randstad Holding NV , the world’s second-biggest temporary staffing company, climbed 5 percent after saying its U.S. business returned to growth. Eiffage SA rallied 14 percent as analysts lifted their recommendations on the stock. Ryanair Holdings Plc rose 8.3 percent as the number of passengers Europe’s largest discount airline carried in November increased. Europe’s Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index rose 2.7 percent to 249.03, following two weeks of losses. Record-low interest rates and about $12 trillion in spending by governments worldwide have spurred a 58 percent rally in the Stoxx 600 since March 9. “Fundamentals are generally improving,” Nick Nelson , head of European equity strategy at UBS AG in London, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday. “We’ve had a turn in the economic cycle with an improvement in GDP and we’ve had a turn in the profit cycle as companies are actually making profits and revenues are coming back.” Among the companies in the Stoxx 600 that have reported quarterly results since Oct. 7, 60 percent topped analysts’ estimates for net income, Bloomberg data show . Earnings may rise 7.4 percent for the full year and 29 percent in 2010, according to estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Manufacturing Rebound China’s purchasing managers’ index, released by HSBC Holdings Plc this week, grew at the fastest pace in five years in November. Europe’s manufacturing industry expanded for a second month after the euro-region economy emerged from its worst recession in more than six decades, according to data from London-based Markit Economics. U.S. payrolls fell by 11,000 workers, less than the most optimistic forecast among economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. The jobless rate declined to 10 percent. The Stoxx 600 may rally to 300 by the end of next year amid “above trend” growth in the global economy, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “We expect 2010 to mark the transition from a ‘hope’ driven to a ‘growth’ driven market phase, in which earnings will take over the baton from valuation expansion as the key driver of returns,” strategists led by Peter Oppenheimer wrote in a report to clients this week. Stoxx 600 Forecasts Deutsche Bank AG raised its 2010 forecast for the index to 250 from 225 and ING increased its estimate to 310 from 260, according to reports this week. National benchmark indexes rose in all of the 18 western European markets. Germany’s DAX gained 2.3 percent, the U.K.’s FTSE 100 added 1.5 and France’s CAC 40 rallied 3.4 percent. Stocks also rose as Dubai World, the investment company seeking to delay repayment on some of its $59 billion of liabilities, said it began “constructive” talks with banks to restructure about $26 billion in debt. The VStoxx Index , which gauges the cost of using options to protect against declines in the Euro Stoxx 50 Index, slumped 12 percent, the biggest weekly drop in a month. Randstad jumped 17 percent as the company said U.S. staffing returned to growth for the first time in three years. Randstad targets revenue of more than 17 billion euros ($25.4 billion) in the mid-term, and aims to increase earnings before interest, tax and amortization to 5 to 6 percent of sales. ‘Outperform’ Eiffage, France’s third-biggest construction company, gained 14 percent as the stock was raised to “outperform” from “underperform” at Exane BNP Paribas. Oddo & Cie. also recommended investors buy the shares. The Stoxx 600 Travel & Leisure Index jumped 4.7 percent, the best performance among 19 industry groups in the Stoxx 600. Ryanair climbed 8.3 percent in Dublin as the airline said it carried 4.96 million passengers in November, up from 4.32 million in the same month last year. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA rallied 11 percent as Citigroup Inc. raised its recommendation for Spain’s largest carrier to “buy” from “hold.” British Airways Plc increased 9.4 percent. The airline said demand for premium flights between New York and London is “particularly strong” as optimism about the global economy spurs an increase in travel among finance professionals. Royal Philips Electronics NV surged 7.7 percent. Europe’s biggest maker of consumer electronics and the European Investment Bank signed a 200 million-euro loan agreement, the company said. Henkel gained 4.8 percent after the German maker of Loctite glues and Persil detergent was raised to “buy” from “hold” at Societe Generale SA. All of the 19 industry groups in the Stoxx 600 advanced this week, except technology shares. Nokia Oyj fell 3.8 percent after the world’s biggest maker of mobile phones said it expects its share of the global handset market to remain flat next year, amid mounting competition from Apple Inc.’s iPhone and lower-end Chinese devices. — With assistance from Francine Lacqua and Adam Haigh in London. Editors: Christiane Lenzner , Paul Sillitoe To contact the reporter on this story: Julie Cruz in Frankfurt at jcruz6@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Math Drills Made Child-Father-of Man Orszag Into a Deficit Hawk

December 1, 2009

By Mike Dorning Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — When Senate leaders gathered around a polished wooden table off the chamber’s floor in October to begin health-care negotiations, Peter Orszag was in a familiar place: at the elbow of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel , helping determine the fate of a critical piece of President Barack Obama’s agenda. As questions about costs and financing cropped up, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly turned to the man he called Mr. Princeton. The senator bestowed the nickname to highlight not only Orszag’s Ivy League pedigree but also his skill in untangling the economic complexity of health care and the federal budget. “I know he is not a longtime person involved in politics, but he is a natural,” Reid said on the Senate floor on Feb. 13 after working with Orszag into the wee hours to win enough Republican votes to pass Obama’s $787 billion stimulus. “He is a brilliant man.” Orszag, 40, who became Obama’s budget chief in January 2009, is working overtime to help steer the nation’s economic course — a role last defined in such high profile by David Stockman , Ronald Reagan’s budget czar. ‘He’s a Nerd’ Stockman, who like Orszag served during an era of increasing deficits, was quoted in 1981 as saying, “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers.” Orszag, in contrast, is at home in the quantitative world. He’s the son of Yale University applied mathematics professor Steven Orszag, who peppered his three sons with math puzzles and four-digit multiplication problems when they were young. Orszag served as a senior economist on the Clinton White House’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1995 and 1996, got his Ph.D. at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1997 and headed the Congressional Budget Office from January 2007 to November 2008 before moving to the Office of Management and Budget. “He’s a nerd,” says Representative Jim Cooper , a Tennessee Democrat who agitated to keep Obama’s health-care plan from increasing the deficit. “But nerds come in handy when you’re in a crisis. There’s a certain comfort there because he knows the numbers.” Now Orszag, the youngest Obama cabinet member, is tackling Washington’s trillion-dollar question: how to pay for everything the president wants to do while trimming the $1.4 trillion deficit that piled up in Obama’s first year. Deficit Battle Even if the economy grew steadily, the OMB projects the deficit in 2019 would amount to 4 percent of gross domestic product. In 2006, when Orszag sounded an alarm at the Brookings Institution policy research organization, the deficit was 1.9 percent of GDP. In 2009, an increase in the deficit of one-tenth of a percentage point of GDP equaled $14.3 billion, about twice the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s $7.7 billion budget. The Obama administration says it inherited most of the deficit from policies enacted under George W. Bush and the effects of the recession. “We’re running large — enormous — short-term deficits for reasons that people understand,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin , Orszag’s predecessor at the CBO and the top economic adviser to Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign. “What I don’t think the markets will tolerate is if we run large long-term deficits — and that’s the direction we’re heading.” Bill Clinton was the last president to end his term without a deficit. He left office with a surplus that equaled 2.4 percent of GDP in 2000. ‘A Threat’ Bush pursued deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cut individual income tax rates by as much as 5 percentage points and expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs. Bush approved a $700 billion bank bailout in the waning months of his presidency, and Obama backed the stimulus package in the first months of his, leaving $1.4 trillion in red ink. “It’s a threat to the ability of the economy to grow at its potential rate,” Ward McCarthy , chief financial economist at Jefferies & Co. says of long-term deficit spending. “It bodes for a lower standard of living in the future.” Orszag came to the budget office convinced that medical costs were the largest long-term driver of the deficit. He’d focused so intensely on health care at the CBO that he called the organization the Congressional Health Office. Total U.S. spending on health care in 2009 was expected to be about $2.5 trillion. ‘The Architect’ Orszag proposed ways to save money, which Obama incorporated into his plan and the House and Senate have debated in their overhaul proposals. He suggested an independent Medicare Commission to set reimbursement rates. He pressed for medical providers to work in tandem to keep patients healthy and share any resulting savings. And he favored penalties for hospitals with high rates of avoidable readmissions, such as heart-surgery patients who return because of fluid in their lungs. “In terms of the fiscal undergirding of the health plan, he was the architect,” David Axelrod , a senior Obama adviser, says of Orszag. “His guidance was central to all the decision making.” Orszag infuses his recommendations with insights from behavioral economics, which suggests an organization can nudge people to action by changing the way it presents choices. ‘Econ 101’ At Brookings, he promoted research that showed companies can boost employees’ retirement savings more effectively by automatically enrolling them in 401(k) funds than by offering financial incentives to do so. He walked around Capitol Hill hawking the findings. “It leads to a richer set of policy discussions than what I call Econ 101 approaches,” he says. Orszag extended behavioral economics to Americans’ health. In a 2008 speech, he talked about seating children at smaller lunch tables to reduce obesity, citing research that shows people eat less in little groups. He says computer databases could prompt doctors to consider treatments that are more cost-effective than what they may have otherwise investigated. “Up pops a screen that says you might want to check for X,” Orszag says about what a doctor might see on a PC in his office. “That is a behavioral economics type of intervention, helping the physician guide decisions.” ‘Peter’s Imprint’ Orszag put behavioral economics to work at the OMB. In October, he dipped into his own bank account to buy pedometers, betting that measuring steps could improve physical fitness on the cheap. The almost 300 staffers who took the challenge walked 26,000 miles during the inaugural month. Orszag has expanded his OMB role from gatekeeper for federal agencies’ funding requests to frequent visitor to Obama’s office. He sees the president virtually every workday as part of the group that delivers Obama’s economic briefing. Orszag has discussed the fiscal 2011 budget, which the White House will deliver to Congress in February. “He’s made presentations to the president already on options,” says a White House aide, declining to reveal details. “The president will mull these options over, but the plan will have Peter’s imprint on it.” Orszag has set a goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2017, a time when the red ink will amount to 4 percent of the economy, according to current OMB predictions . ‘Credibility on the Line’ “My credibility is on the line in the document that we put out,” Orszag told business leaders in November, referring to the 2011 budget. In public, Orszag offers assurances — but no specifics — that Obama will honor a Feb. 23 pledge to halve the fiscal 2009 deficit by 2012. Unlike his boss, Orszag is on record with a reform proposal for Social Security. In 2004, he co-authored a plan with Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Peter Diamond that called for increases in taxes and cuts in benefits, tilting the burden toward better-paid workers. The administration faces the delicate task of trying to cut the deficit without squelching an economic recovery, Orszag says. “Unfortunately they’re in some tension with each other,” he says. The median forecast for economic growth in 2010 is 2.6 percent, Bloomberg’s November survey of 63 economists found. ‘Key Balancing Act’ For now, the growth is coming almost exclusively from Obama’s stimulus and a temporary boost in orders as stores restock, Orszag told Bloomberg News reporters and editors in September. “Managing that transition from where we are now to where we need to be in 2014 or 2016 with the deficit is very tricky given the competing needs of short-term macro and medium-term fiscal discipline,” he said. “That’s going to be the key balancing act.” In a city enthralled with status, Orszag enjoys a rising profile. GQ magazine placed him ahead of every administration member except Obama, Vice President Joe Biden , Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates among Washington’s power elite. The Washington Post dubbed him one of the capital city’s most eligible bachelors. Edamame and Diet Coke Rail thin and 6-foot-2 (188 centimeters), Orszag, a marathon runner, is as disciplined in fitness as he is at work. His assistant often brings him broiled chicken breast, steamed vegetables and edamame for his lunch in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. He prefers to do his runs on the way home to Northwest Washington — 5.5 miles (8.85 kilometers) from the office — so he can go uphill. The only vice friends note is his consumption of Diet Coke — a daily minimum of at least a six-pack. He decided to maintain the habit after taking a test to make sure he didn’t carry a gene associated with caffeine-related ailments, an aide says. Orszag’s 1997 marriage to Cameron Hamill, a Stanford University graduate who worked in the Treasury Department during the Clinton years, ended in divorce. He’s now in what a close associate says is a serious relationship with ABC News financial correspondent Bianna Golodryga. Orszag has joint custody of two school-age children. He says he likes 8 a.m. weekend soccer games so he can watch his son before heading to work. Orszag hangs out with Washington’s A-list. His catered dinners bring together members of Congress, administration officials, Supreme Court justices, scholars and journalists. At one, the conversation turned to a uniquely Washingtonian topic: members of Congress’s remembrances of their maiden floor speeches. Math Whizzes Orszag’s father set a tone of intellectual achievement at home in Lexington, Massachusetts. The regular math drills built the children’s ability to solve complex problems quickly. For fun, Michael, Jonathan and Peter, the middle child, played the battle game Empire on a wall-size PDP-11 computer against students from MIT, where their father taught at the time. All three went to Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire; college at Princeton University; and graduate school in Britain. Peter and Jonathan graduated from college summa cum laude and won Marshall Scholarships for graduate study in Britain. “Don’t ask who had the higher GPA,” says Jonathan Orszag , 36, senior managing director at economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon. “It’s a state secret. No one tells. But we each have our own arguments.” Clinton White House Orszag proved his affinity for details at Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. Chairman Joseph Stiglitz , now an economics professor at Columbia University, sought his help in blocking privatization of U.S. Enrichment Corp., which makes enriched uranium for nuclear plants. Stiglitz said a for-profit company would have less incentive to encourage the import of competing fuel made by the decommissioning of Soviet nuclear warheads. He wound up disagreeing with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy and the Pentagon. Stiglitz staved off privatization, though it was completed after he left. “In government, quite often the experts in the various departments tend to dominate because no one can challenge them,” he says. “With Peter there, we could develop the expertise to challenge anybody.” ‘Respect on the Hill’ Orszag established himself as a voice for fiscal discipline at a Brookings group called the Hamilton Project, founded by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin . “The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more suddenly than conventional analysis suggests,” Orszag said in Senate testimony in 2006. Once Obama settles on a budget, Orszag will become a chief salesman before Congress. He may fall back on a reservoir of goodwill built up while at the CBO. “He has unusual respect on the Hill among those who do fiscal policy,” says Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Budget Committee’s top-ranking Republican. Orszag proved his numbers were credible at the CBO, says Representative Paul Ryan , the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. Orszag also showed his independence there, Ryan says, citing Orszag’s decision to treat carbon-emission caps as a tax on business rather than revenue-neutral regulation. “There was pressure from his party to do otherwise,” Ryan says. Taming the nation’s looming budget deficits is proving a consummate test for Orszag and the problem-solving skills instilled by his mathematician father. “I am not underestimating how difficult it will be,” Orszag says. “But it’s crucial.” To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Math Drills Made Child-Father-of-Man Orszag Deficit Hawk Using Health Care

December 1, 2009

By Mike Dorning Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — When Senate leaders gathered around a polished wooden table off the chamber’s floor in October to begin health-care negotiations, Peter Orszag was in a familiar place: at the elbow of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel , helping determine the fate of a critical piece of President Barack Obama’s agenda. As questions about costs and financing cropped up, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly turned to the man he called Mr. Princeton. The senator bestowed the nickname to highlight not only Orszag’s Ivy League pedigree but also his skill in untangling the economic complexity of health care and the federal budget. “I know he is not a longtime person involved in politics, but he is a natural,” Reid said on the Senate floor on Feb. 13 after working with Orszag into the wee hours to win enough Republican votes to pass Obama’s $787 billion stimulus. “He is a brilliant man.” Orszag, 40, who became Obama’s budget chief in January 2009, is working overtime to help steer the nation’s economic course — a role last defined in such high profile by David Stockman , Ronald Reagan’s budget czar. ‘He’s a Nerd’ Stockman, who like Orszag served during an era of increasing deficits, was quoted in 1981 as saying, “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers.” Orszag, in contrast, is at home in the quantitative world. He’s the son of Yale University applied mathematics professor Steven Orszag, who peppered his three sons with math puzzles and four-digit multiplication problems when they were young. Orszag served as a senior economist on the Clinton White House’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1995 and 1996, got his Ph.D. at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1997 and headed the Congressional Budget Office from January 2007 to November 2008 before moving to the Office of Management and Budget. “He’s a nerd,” says Representative Jim Cooper , a Tennessee Democrat who agitated to keep Obama’s health-care plan from increasing the deficit. “But nerds come in handy when you’re in a crisis. There’s a certain comfort there because he knows the numbers.” Now Orszag, the youngest Obama cabinet member, is tackling Washington’s trillion-dollar question: how to pay for everything the president wants to do while trimming the $1.4 trillion deficit that piled up in Obama’s first year. Deficit Battle Even if the economy grew steadily, the OMB projects the deficit in 2019 would amount to 4 percent of gross domestic product. In 2006, when Orszag sounded an alarm at the Brookings Institution policy research organization, the deficit was 1.9 percent of GDP. In 2009, an increase in the deficit of one-tenth of a percentage point of GDP equaled $14.3 billion, about twice the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s $7.7 billion budget. The Obama administration says it inherited most of the deficit from policies enacted under George W. Bush and the effects of the recession. “We’re running large — enormous — short-term deficits for reasons that people understand,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin , Orszag’s predecessor at the CBO and the top economic adviser to Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign. “What I don’t think the markets will tolerate is if we run large long-term deficits — and that’s the direction we’re heading.” Bill Clinton was the last president to end his term without a deficit. He left office with a surplus that equaled 2.4 percent of GDP in 2000. ‘A Threat’ Bush pursued deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cut individual income tax rates by as much as 5 percentage points and expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs. Bush approved a $700 billion bank bailout in the waning months of his presidency, and Obama backed the stimulus package in the first months of his, leaving $1.4 trillion in red ink. “It’s a threat to the ability of the economy to grow at its potential rate,” Ward McCarthy , chief financial economist at Jefferies & Co. says of long-term deficit spending. “It bodes for a lower standard of living in the future.” Orszag came to the budget office convinced that medical costs were the largest long-term driver of the deficit. He’d focused so intensely on health care at the CBO that he called the organization the Congressional Health Office. Total U.S. spending on health care in 2009 was expected to be about $2.5 trillion. ‘The Architect’ Orszag proposed ways to save money, which Obama incorporated into his plan and the House and Senate have debated in their overhaul proposals. He suggested an independent Medicare Commission to set reimbursement rates. He pressed for medical providers to work in tandem to keep patients healthy and share any resulting savings. And he favored penalties for hospitals with high rates of avoidable readmissions, such as heart-surgery patients who return because of fluid in their lungs. “In terms of the fiscal undergirding of the health plan, he was the architect,” David Axelrod , a senior Obama adviser, says of Orszag. “His guidance was central to all the decision making.” Orszag infuses his recommendations with insights from behavioral economics, which suggests an organization can nudge people to action by changing the way it presents choices. ‘Econ 101’ At Brookings, he promoted research that showed companies can boost employees’ retirement savings more effectively by automatically enrolling them in 401(k) funds than by offering financial incentives to do so. He walked around Capitol Hill hawking the findings. “It leads to a richer set of policy discussions than what I call Econ 101 approaches,” he says. Orszag extended behavioral economics to Americans’ health. In a 2008 speech, he talked about seating children at smaller lunch tables to reduce obesity, citing research that shows people eat less in little groups. He says computer databases could prompt doctors to consider treatments that are more cost-effective than what they may have otherwise investigated. “Up pops a screen that says you might want to check for X,” Orszag says about what a doctor might see on a PC in his office. “That is a behavioral economics type of intervention, helping the physician guide decisions.” ‘Peter’s Imprint’ Orszag put behavioral economics to work at the OMB. In October, he dipped into his own bank account to buy pedometers, betting that measuring steps could improve physical fitness on the cheap. The almost 300 staffers who took the challenge walked 26,000 miles during the inaugural month. Orszag has expanded his OMB role from gatekeeper for federal agencies’ funding requests to frequent visitor to Obama’s office. He sees the president virtually every workday as part of the group that delivers Obama’s economic briefing. Orszag has discussed the fiscal 2011 budget, which the White House will deliver to Congress in February. “He’s made presentations to the president already on options,” says a White House aide, declining to reveal details. “The president will mull these options over, but the plan will have Peter’s imprint on it.” Orszag has set a goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2017, a time when the red ink will amount to 4 percent of the economy, according to current OMB predictions . ‘Credibility on the Line’ “My credibility is on the line in the document that we put out,” Orszag told business leaders in November, referring to the 2011 budget. In public, Orszag offers assurances — but no specifics — that Obama will honor a Feb. 23 pledge to halve the fiscal 2009 deficit by 2012. Unlike his boss, Orszag is on record with a reform proposal for Social Security. In 2004, he co-authored a plan with Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Peter Diamond that called for increases in taxes and cuts in benefits, tilting the burden toward better-paid workers. The administration faces the delicate task of trying to cut the deficit without squelching an economic recovery, Orszag says. “Unfortunately they’re in some tension with each other,” he says. The median forecast for economic growth in 2010 is 2.6 percent, Bloomberg’s November survey of 63 economists found. ‘Key Balancing Act’ For now, the growth is coming almost exclusively from Obama’s stimulus and a temporary boost in orders as stores restock, Orszag told Bloomberg News reporters and editors in September. “Managing that transition from where we are now to where we need to be in 2014 or 2016 with the deficit is very tricky given the competing needs of short-term macro and medium-term fiscal discipline,” he said. “That’s going to be the key balancing act.” In a city enthralled with status, Orszag enjoys a rising profile. GQ magazine placed him ahead of every administration member except Obama, Vice President Joe Biden , Emanuel and Defense Secretary Robert Gates among Washington’s power elite. The Washington Post dubbed him one of the capital city’s most eligible bachelors. Edamame and Diet Coke Rail thin and 6-foot-2 (188 centimeters), Orszag, a marathon runner, is as disciplined in fitness as he is at work. His assistant often brings him broiled chicken breast, steamed vegetables and edamame for his lunch in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. He prefers to do his runs on the way home to Northwest Washington — 5.5 miles (8.85 kilometers) from the office — so he can go uphill. The only vice friends note is his consumption of Diet Coke — a daily minimum of at least a six-pack. He decided to maintain the habit after taking a test to make sure he didn’t carry a gene associated with caffeine-related ailments, an aide says. Orszag’s 1997 marriage to Cameron Hamill, a Stanford University graduate who worked in the Treasury Department during the Clinton years, ended in divorce. He’s now in what a close associate says is a serious relationship with ABC News financial correspondent Bianna Golodryga. Orszag has joint custody of two school-age children. He says he likes 8 a.m. weekend soccer games so he can watch his son before heading to work. Orszag hangs out with Washington’s A-list. His catered dinners bring together members of Congress, administration officials, Supreme Court justices, scholars and journalists. At one, the conversation turned to a uniquely Washingtonian topic: members of Congress’s remembrances of their maiden floor speeches. Math Whizzes Orszag’s father set a tone of intellectual achievement at home in Lexington, Massachusetts. The regular math drills built the children’s ability to solve complex problems quickly. For fun, Michael, Jonathan and Peter, the middle child, played the battle game Empire on a wall-size PDP-11 computer against students from MIT, where their father taught at the time. All three went to Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire; college at Princeton University; and graduate school in Britain. Peter and Jonathan graduated from college summa cum laude and won Marshall Scholarships for graduate study in Britain. “Don’t ask who had the higher GPA,” says Jonathan Orszag , 36, senior managing director at economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon. “It’s a state secret. No one tells. But we each have our own arguments.” Clinton White House Orszag proved his affinity for details at Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. Chairman Joseph Stiglitz , now an economics professor at Columbia University, sought his help in blocking privatization of U.S. Enrichment Corp., which makes enriched uranium for nuclear plants. Stiglitz said a for-profit company would have less incentive to encourage the import of competing fuel made by the decommissioning of Soviet nuclear warheads. He wound up disagreeing with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy and the Pentagon. Stiglitz staved off privatization, though it was completed after he left. “In government, quite often the experts in the various departments tend to dominate because no one can challenge them,” he says. “With Peter there, we could develop the expertise to challenge anybody.” ‘Respect on the Hill’ Orszag established himself as a voice for fiscal discipline at a Brookings group called the Hamilton Project, founded by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin . “The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more suddenly than conventional analysis suggests,” Orszag said in Senate testimony in 2006. Once Obama settles on a budget, Orszag will become a chief salesman before Congress. He may fall back on a reservoir of goodwill built up while at the CBO. “He has unusual respect on the Hill among those who do fiscal policy,” says Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Budget Committee’s top-ranking Republican. Orszag proved his numbers were credible at the CBO, says Representative Paul Ryan , the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. Orszag also showed his independence there, Ryan says, citing Orszag’s decision to treat carbon-emission caps as a tax on business rather than revenue-neutral regulation. “There was pressure from his party to do otherwise,” Ryan says. Taming the nation’s looming budget deficits is proving a consummate test for Orszag and the problem-solving skills instilled by his mathematician father. “I am not underestimating how difficult it will be,” Orszag says. “But it’s crucial.” To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

WordPress » Blog Archive » Distressed Debt Recommendations from …

November 23, 2009

Distressed Debt Recommendations from Citigroup. GuruFocus Updates 23 November 2009 Featured No Comment. By Hunter. This past Tuesday, Citigroup’s distressed analysts presented their respective top picks to a large audience at the …

Read the full article →

Mammograms Should Start for Women at Age 50, Not 40, U.S. Panel Recommends

November 17, 2009

By David Olmos Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Annual mammograms for most women in their 40s have more drawbacks than benefits, said a panel of U.S. doctors that recommended women wait until age 50 to start getting breast cancer screening tests every two years. The change in guidelines released by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force , a government-backed physician group, said women in their 40s are more likely to get false-positive tests that can lead to unnecessary biopsies and anxiety. The recommendations, which also said that self-examinations were unnecessary, don’t apply to women who carry a high risk for breast cancer. Those women should talk to their doctors about when to get screening, the panel said. The new guidelines, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine , pit the task force against the American Cancer Society , which insisted doctors should still advise women to undergo routine annual screening starting at age 40. About 64 percent of women ages 40 to 49 had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said. “This is not a blanket recommendation not to worry until age 50,” said Diana Petitti , a disease epidemiologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, and vice chair of the panel. “It’s a recommendation to have a discussion with your physician to better understand the trade-offs between starting exams now and starting later.” Imaging machines for mammograms, and related supplies, are marketed by General Electric Co. , based in Fairfield, Connecticut, Eastman Kodak Co. , of Rochester, N.Y., and Munich- based Siemens AG . Insurer Coverage J. Leonard Lichtenfeld , the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer, said the panel’s guidelines may affect insurance payouts. ‘Our hope is that insurers will not make any change in coverage,” Lichtenfeld said. WellPoint Inc. , the top U.S. health insurer by enrollment with 34 million members, pays for annual mammograms for women age 40 in the majority of its health plans. The Indianapolis- based company periodically reviews its reimbursement policies and “doesn’t adhere to any one source” for guidance, said Jill Becher, a company spokeswoman in Milwaukee. Mammograms, self-breast examinations, and doctor’s exams are the three main forms of detecting breast cancer. The task force said there was no evidence that self-exams reduce breast- cancer deaths, and insufficient information exists to recommend that doctors do routine physical exams. The mammograms are used to check for breast cancer in women who have no signs or symptoms of the disease, and also to check for breast cancer after a lump or other signs of cancer have been found, according to the National Cancer Institute . Cause of Death Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of death among U.S. women, after lung cancer, killing 40,480 women in 2008, according to the task force report. The task force analyzed published research and developed computer-simulation models to evaluate the likely health outcomes if mammograms were begun at certain ages and done every one or two years. The study confirmed earlier research that women who have mammograms die less frequently of breast cancer than those who don’t have the tests. About two deaths per 1,000 women are averted if women begin annual screenings rather than exams every two years starting at age 40, the task force estimated. It also estimated that women who begin getting mammograms at 40 will have about 60 percent more false positive results per 1,000 exams than women who start screenings at age 50. A false positive, in which an abnormality is seen that proves not to be cancer, typically leads to additional screenings and tissue biopsies, the panel’s researchers said. Computer Modeling The cancer society challenged the reliability of the task force study’s methods. “We are reluctant to recommend changing a proven program that has helped to save lives,” Lichtenfeld said. The society questions whether the task’s force computer modeling “is sufficiently sophisticated and accurate enough,” he said. The recommendations aren’t intended for women older than 40 who have a higher risk for breast cancer. Increased risk can come from having a gene mutation linked to breast cancer or having been exposed often to chest radiation, which can raise the probability of breast cancer. The task force said it didn’t make recommendations for these higher-risk groups because it lacked sufficient data to know the benefits of more frequent screening tests. Mixed Reactions Women’s health groups varied in their responses to the new guidelines. Susan G. Komen for the Cure , the Dallas-based breast cancer advocacy group, said it won’t change its recommendation that women ages 40 to 49 get annual mammograms. “We would not want to see a change in policy or reimbursement for screening mammography at this time,” said Eric Winer , the group’s chief scientific adviser, in a statement. The task force’s recommendations were applauded by the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a Washington-based advocacy group, which said the guidelines support its position. “Women deserve the truth even when it is complicated,” said Fran Visco , the coalition’s president, in a statement. “They can accept it.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists rejected the task force’s recommendations, maintaining its guidelines that women in their 40s be screened every one to two years and women age 50 and older get annual exams, according to a statement issued by the group on Monday. Difficult to Assess Researchers and physicians know that results from the X- rays aren’t as reliable in younger women as in older women. Women in their 40s typically have denser breast tissue, making it more difficult for technicians to determine if an image is normal or cancerous. After women enter menopause, typically about age 50, the breast tissue becomes less dense and more fat, and the X-rays can be more accurately interpreted, said Susan Love , president and medical director of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation in Santa Monica, California. The panel’s suggestions for women ages 40 to 49 are “long overdue,” said Love in a telephone interview. “Most countries in the world do not do mammography screening until age 50.” “There is a lot of anxiety created when someone tells you that there is something that showed up in a test,” said Karla Kerlikowske, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center who wrote an editorial accompanying the task force report. Subsequent exams expose women to more radiation, and although biopsies are “low risk,” some patients develop infections or experience pain and bruises, she said. Every Two Years Screening women ages 50 to 74 every two years “achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm,” the task force said. Now women in the older age group get a mammogram, on average, every 14 months, according to the report. In forming its guidelines, the task force’s “biggest concern” was that women would be confused by conflicting advice from health experts or wrongly interpret the panel’s message as a blanket recommendation for those ages 40 to 49 to forego screening until they turn 50, Petitti said. Instead, decisions by women younger than 50 and their doctors should be based on “the risk for breast cancer and preferences about the benefits and harms” the task force wrote in the study. Although the recommendations are “very clear and thoughtful,” women are likely to be confused by the different advice of health experts, Kerlikowske said. It may be difficult to persuade many women in their 40s who have been told by their doctors for years that annual screenings are beneficial to accept the panel’s recommendations, said the cancer society’s Lichtenfeld. “The task force is saying you can get 70 percent of the benefit if you get a mammogram every two years compared with every year,” Lichtenfeld said. “There will be women who say, ‘I want 100 percent of the benefit.’” To contact the reporter on this story: David Olmos in San Francisco at dolmos@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Yearly Mammograms Unneeded for Women in Their 40s, U.S. Panel Recommends

November 16, 2009

By David Olmos Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — Annual mammograms are unnecessary for women in their 40s, and those in their 50s should only have them every two years, a panel of U.S. doctors said, drawing opposition from the American Cancer Society . The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force , a government-backed panel of doctors, said potential harm from annual screening, including false-positive results, cuts the test’s benefits. The panel’s recommendations, which do not cover women who carry a high risk for the disease, also urge that doctors stop showing women how to do self-examinations because there is little evidence it cuts cancer deaths. The new guidelines, published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine , pit the task force against the Cancer Society, which said doctors should still advise women to get routine annual screening starting at age 40. An estimated 64 percent of women age 40 to 49 have had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said. “This is not a blanket recommendation not to worry until age 50,” said Diana Petitti , a disease epidemiologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, and vice chair of the panel. “It’s a recommendation to have a discussion with your physician to better understand the trade-offs between starting exams now and starting later.” General Electric Co. , based in Fairfield, Connecticut, Eastman Kodak Co. , of Rochester, N.Y. and Munich-based Siemens AG , make imaging machines for mammograms and related supplies. Insurer Coverage J. Leonard Lichtenfeld , the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer, said such a recommendation may affect screening payments. ‘Our hope is that insurers will not make any change in coverage,” Lichtenfeld said. Wellpoint Inc. , the top U.S. health insurer by enrollment with 34 million members, pays for annual mammograms for women age 40 in the majority of its health plans. The Indianapolis- based company periodically reviews its reimbursement policies and “doesn’t adhere to any one source” for guidance, said Jill Becher, a company spokeswoman in Milwaukee. Mammograms, self-breast examinations and clinical examinations are the three main forms of detecting breast cancer. The x-rays are used to check for breast cancer in women who have no signs or symptoms of the disease, and also to check for breast cancer after a lump or other signs of cancer has been found, according to the National Cancer Institute . Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of death among U.S. women, after lung cancer, killing 40,480 women in 2008, according to the task force report. Computer Simulations The task force analyzed published research and developed computer-simulation models to evaluate the likely health outcomes if mammograms were begun at certain ages and done every year or two years. The study confirmed earlier research that women who have mammograms die less frequently of breast cancer than those who don’t have the tests. About two deaths per 1,000 women are averted if women begin annual screenings rather than exams every two years starting at age 40, the task-force estimated. It also estimated that women who begin getting mammograms at age 40 will have about 60 percent more false positive results per 1,000 exams than women who start screenings at age 50. A false positive, in which an abnormality is seen that proves not to be cancer, typically leads to additional screenings and tissue biopsies, the researchers said. “We are reluctant to recommend changing a proven program that has helped to save lives,” the Cancer Society’s Lichtenfeld said. The society questions whether the task’s force computer modeling “is sufficiently sophisticated and accurate enough,” he said. No Change in Policy Susan G. Komen for the Cure , the Dallas-based breast cancer advocacy group, also said it won’t change its recommendation that women ages 40-49 get annual mammograms. “We would not want to see a change in policy or reimbursement for screening mammography at this time,” said Eric Winer, the group’s chief scientific adviser, in a statement. Researchers and physicians have known for years that results from the x-rays are not as reliable in younger women as in older women. Women in their 40s typically have denser breast tissue, making it more difficult for technicians to determine if an image is normal or cancerous. After women enter menopause, typically at about age 50, the breast tissue becomes less dense and more fat, and the x-rays can be more accurately interpreted, said Susan Love , president and medical director of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation in Santa Monica, California. ‘Long Overdue’ The panel’s suggestions for women ages 40 to 49 are “long overdue,” said Love in a phone interview. “Most countries in the world do not do mammography screening until age 50.” “There is a lot of anxiety created when someone tells you that there is something that showed up in a test,” said Karla Kerlikowske, an epidemiologist at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center who wrote an editorial accompanying the task force report. Subsequent exams expose women to more radiation, and although biopsies are “low risk,” some patients develop infections or experience pain and bruises, she said. Screening women ages 50 to 74 every two years “achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm,” the task force said. Now women in the older age group get a mammogram, on average, every 14 months, according to the report. ‘Biggest Concern’ In forming its guidelines, the task force’s “biggest concern” was that women would be confused by conflicting advice from health experts or wrongly interpret the panel’s message as a blanket recommendation for those ages 40 to 49 to not ever get screened, Pettiti said. Instead, decisions by women below age 50, and their doctors, should be based on “the risk for breast cancer and preferences about the benefits and harms” the task force wrote in the study. Although the recommendations are “very clear and thoughtful,” women are likely to be confused by the different advice of health experts, Kerlilowske said. She and other physicians said it may be difficult to persuade many women in their 40s who have been told by their doctors for years that annual screenings are beneficial to accept the panel’s recommendations. “The task force is saying you can get 70 percent of the benefit if you get a mammogram every two years compared with every year,” said Lichtenfeld, of the American Cancer Society. “There will be women who say, ‘I want 100 percent of the benefit’.” To contact the reporter on this story: David Olmos in San Francisco at dolmos@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Yearly Mammograms Unneeded for Women in Their 40s, U.S. Panel Recommends

November 16, 2009

By David Olmos Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — Annual mammograms are unnecessary for women in their 40s, and those in their 50s should only have them every two years, a panel of U.S. doctors said, drawing opposition from the American Cancer Society . The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force , a government-backed panel of doctors, said potential harm from annual screening, including false-positive results, cuts the test’s benefits. The panel’s recommendations, which do not cover women who carry a high risk for the disease, also urge that doctors stop showing women how to do self-examinations because there is little evidence it cuts cancer deaths. The new guidelines, published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine , pit the task force against the Cancer Society, which said doctors should still advise women to get routine annual screening starting at age 40. An estimated 64 percent of women age 40 to 49 have had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said. “This is not a blanket recommendation not to worry until age 50,” said Diana Petitti , a disease epidemiologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, and vice chair of the panel. “It’s a recommendation to have a discussion with your physician to better understand the trade-offs between starting exams now and starting later.” General Electric Co. , based in Fairfield, Connecticut, Eastman Kodak Co. , of Rochester, N.Y. and Munich-based Siemens AG , make imaging machines for mammograms and related supplies. Insurer Coverage J. Leonard Lichtenfeld , the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer, said such a recommendation may affect screening payments. ‘Our hope is that insurers will not make any change in coverage,” Lichtenfeld said. Wellpoint Inc. , the top U.S. health insurer by enrollment with 34 million members, pays for annual mammograms for women age 40 in the majority of its health plans. The Indianapolis- based company periodically reviews its reimbursement policies and “doesn’t adhere to any one source” for guidance, said Jill Becher, a company spokeswoman in Milwaukee. Mammograms, self-breast examinations and clinical examinations are the three main forms of detecting breast cancer. The x-rays are used to check for breast cancer in women who have no signs or symptoms of the disease, and also to check for breast cancer after a lump or other signs of cancer has been found, according to the National Cancer Institute . Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of death among U.S. women, after lung cancer, killing 40,480 women in 2008, according to the task force report. Computer Simulations The task force analyzed published research and developed computer-simulation models to evaluate the likely health outcomes if mammograms were begun at certain ages and done every year or two years. The study confirmed earlier research that women who have mammograms die less frequently of breast cancer than those who don’t have the tests. About two deaths per 1,000 women are averted if women begin annual screenings rather than exams every two years starting at age 40, the task-force estimated. It also estimated that women who begin getting mammograms at age 40 will have about 60 percent more false positive results per 1,000 exams than women who start screenings at age 50. A false positive, in which an abnormality is seen that proves not to be cancer, typically leads to additional screenings and tissue biopsies, the researchers said. “We are reluctant to recommend changing a proven program that has helped to save lives,” the Cancer Society’s Lichtenfeld said. The society questions whether the task’s force computer modeling “is sufficiently sophisticated and accurate enough,” he said. No Change in Policy Susan G. Komen for the Cure , the Dallas-based breast cancer advocacy group, also said it won’t change its recommendation that women ages 40-49 get annual mammograms. “We would not want to see a change in policy or reimbursement for screening mammography at this time,” said Eric Winer, the group’s chief scientific adviser, in a statement. Researchers and physicians have known for years that results from the x-rays are not as reliable in younger women as in older women. Women in their 40s typically have denser breast tissue, making it more difficult for technicians to determine if an image is normal or cancerous. After women enter menopause, typically at about age 50, the breast tissue becomes less dense and more fat, and the x-rays can be more accurately interpreted, said Susan Love , president and medical director of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation in Santa Monica, California. ‘Long Overdue’ The panel’s suggestions for women ages 40 to 49 are “long overdue,” said Love in a phone interview. “Most countries in the world do not do mammography screening until age 50.” “There is a lot of anxiety created when someone tells you that there is something that showed up in a test,” said Karla Kerlikowske, an epidemiologist at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center who wrote an editorial accompanying the task force report. Subsequent exams expose women to more radiation, and although biopsies are “low risk,” some patients develop infections or experience pain and bruises, she said. Screening women ages 50 to 74 every two years “achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm,” the task force said. Now women in the older age group get a mammogram, on average, every 14 months, according to the report. ‘Biggest Concern’ In forming its guidelines, the task force’s “biggest concern” was that women would be confused by conflicting advice from health experts or wrongly interpret the panel’s message as a blanket recommendation for those ages 40 to 49 to not ever get screened, Pettiti said. Instead, decisions by women below age 50, and their doctors, should be based on “the risk for breast cancer and preferences about the benefits and harms” the task force wrote in the study. Although the recommendations are “very clear and thoughtful,” women are likely to be confused by the different advice of health experts, Kerlilowske said. She and other physicians said it may be difficult to persuade many women in their 40s who have been told by their doctors for years that annual screenings are beneficial to accept the panel’s recommendations. “The task force is saying you can get 70 percent of the benefit if you get a mammogram every two years compared with every year,” said Lichtenfeld, of the American Cancer Society. “There will be women who say, ‘I want 100 percent of the benefit’.” To contact the reporter on this story: David Olmos in San Francisco at dolmos@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Moneyed Interests Lining Up For Battle Over Accounting Standards

November 16, 2009

In the midst of what was supposed to be a Congressional push for increased financial regulation and accountability, a powerful coalition of moneyed interests is increasing pressure on Congress to undermine the independence of accounting standards. Banks and major real-estate players are pushing for a system that would actually relax accounting rules in times of economic distress. Instead of treating a fever, suspending accounting standards when the economy is in turmoil is like telling a patient that 104 degrees isn’t so bad and that they’ll be just fine. The group behind the move sent a letter to members of the House Financial Services Committee on Monday, pushing them to back an amendment that will be introduced by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) and could be voted on as early as Wednesday. The letter was obtained by HuffPost and is signed by representatives of eight major players that would benefit from looser accounting standards: the American Bankers Association, Commercial Mortgage Securities Association, Council of Federal Home Loan Banks, the Financial Services Roundtable, the National Multi Housing Council, the National Apartment Association, National Association of Home Builders and the Real Estate Roundtable. The bank and real estate interests, however, have gone too far in the eyes of their usual allies, leading to a corporate rumble of epic proportions. Accountants, investors, the Chamber of Commerce and regular businesses with tangible products are lining up against it. An unusually potent opposition has formed, including Ernst & Young, the American Council for Capital Formation, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, CalPERS, Center for Audit Quality, Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, Council of Institutional Investors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, Financial Executives International, Grant Thornton LLP, Institute of Management Accountants, Investment Company Institute, KPMG LLP and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “The Perlmutter accounting amendment is fundamentally flawed,” reads a separate letter from E&Y CEO Jim Turley to committee members. “Under the amendment, financial institution regulators — through their majority membership on the underlying bill’s systemic risk council — would be able to set or suspend generally accepted accounting principles for the entire corporate community.” The amendment has yet to be introduced but an advance copy that was floating around K Street was forwarded to HuffPost . A Perlmutter spokeswoman confirmed it is authentic. The amendment would give bank regulators the power to, “either publicly or privately,” order the “suspension, modification or elimination of such accounting principles, standards or procedures as they may apply to the stability of the financial system or the safety and soundness of financial companies, as a whole, for such duration as is reasonable and appropriate.” Perlmutter and Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass) said that community banks were driving the change hard. That may be, but the Independent Community Bankers of America, the small banks’ leading lobby shop, didn’t sign on to the letter. The ABA, while it mainly represents big banks, also includes smaller ones in its association and did sign the letter. Other signers of the missive — the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association and the Financial Services Roundtable — are Wall Street groups. “We don’t have anything against Perlmutter['s amendment], but we’re focusing on amendments that are a higher priority,” said Steve Verdier, director of the congressional relations group for ICBA. “We think that to the extent that it raises an issue and challenges FASB, that’s a positive, but it doesn’t really address the problems that community banks have with mark-to-market accounting.” Verdier was referring to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is the bane of bankrupt banks because it sets standards that say that they are, in fact, bankrupt. Banks would prefer that a regulator who had other interests, beyond accurate accounting, be put in charge of accounting standards. Frank and other committee Democrats say that community banks are the financial institutions with real clout in the House, because Wall Street has been discredited by the collapse and continue massive bonus payouts. The fate of the Perlmutter amendment, if small banks don’t get strongly behind it, will be a test-case of that theory. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who has been a critic of the mark-to-market accounting that the banks despise FASB for enforcing, is cited by the financial institutions in their letter praising the Perlmutter amendment. But Volcker himself hates it. “That’s a terrible idea,” he told the New York Times on Monday, when asked about the amendment, which could come up for a vote as early as Wednesday. On the Senate side, Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) rejected the bank entreaties and left the FASB with the independence it currently has. The letter supporting the Perlmutter amendment:: November 16, 2009 The Honorable Barney Frank Chairman, Committee on Financial Services U.S. House of Representative 2129 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Spencer Bachus Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services U.S. House of Representative B371A Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: The undersigned trade associations representing home builders, the top owners and investors of U.S. commercial and multifamily real estate, traditional banks and other financial companies urge you to support the Perlmutter-Lucas amendment, expected to be offered at the Committee’s mark up of the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009. The Perlmutter-Lucas amendment would have no effect on the role of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FSAB) in setting accounting policy or the oversight of accounting issues vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). If an accounting principle or standard poses systemic risks that threaten the stability of the United States financial system, the Financial Oversight Council (Council) would work with the SEC to ensure that those risks are mitigated. The Perlmutter-Lucas amendment: * Retains existing oversight of FASB by the SEC. * Preserves FASB’s existing independence. * Provides the Council with oversight authority to address accounting issues that pose systemic risk in a similar manner as its oversight of other financial issues. * Provides the Council with authority to review any accounting principle or standard that poses a systemic risk. Based on the majority view, the Council may make a recommendation to the SEC that it take action to ensure that systemic risk concerns are mitigated. The SEC is a member of the Council and would be a party to any determination made by the Council. * Provides the Council with authority to act on a systemic risk issue if the SEC fails to do so. The Perlmutter-Lucas amendment would help address global concern that accounting standards can exacerbate systemic risk and instability in the financial system. For example: * The Group of 30, chaired by Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Trustees of the International Accounting Standards Board and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve), noted the importance of examining the effect on the credit markets before implementing a proposed accounting standard.(1) * The G20 provided recommendations for strengthening the financial system, which included the need to improve specific accounting standards and the need to reduce the procyclicality of certain of the standards. It further recommended that the Financial Stability Board(2) and others work with the accounting standards setters to implement changes by year-end 2009.(3) * Financial Stability Forum (which includes central banks, supervisory authorities, finance ministries, international financial institutions, and international regulatory and supervisory groups) identified a number of accounting issues as being problematic with respect to procyclicality, and the FSF noted ways to mitigate the problems in order to strengthen the financial system.(4) We believe it is extremely important that Congress address accounting policy as part of financial reform. Although the SEC is responsible for accounting oversight, it has not been charged with systemic risk issues. Since the SEC’s mandate is too narrow to take into consideration potential systemic risk created by accounting standards, the Council should be able to review and make recommendations on any accounting principle or standard that it believes poses a systemic risk. The SEC is a member of the Council, and would be engaged in, and vote on, all Council actions. Without providing the Council with the ability to address systemic risk relating to accounting, the Council will not be able to address one of the significant issue areas that exacerbated the nation’s current financial problems. We appreciate your consideration of our view on this most important issue. American Bankers Association Commercial Mortgage Securities Association Council of Federal Home Loan Banks Financial Services Roundtable National Multi Housing Council National Apartment Association National Association of Home Builders Real Estate Roundtable Footnotes (1) “Off-Balance-Sheet Vehicles: Pending accounting rule changes for the consolidation of many types of off-balance-sheet vehicles represent a positive and needed improvement. It is important, before they are fully implemented, that careful consideration be given to how these rules are likely to impact efforts to restore the viability of securitized credit markets.” Financial Reform – A Framework for Financial Stability, The Group of 30, January 2009. (2) The membership of the Financial Stability Forum was recently expanded and is now the Financial Stability Board. (3) “…the FSB [Financial Stability Board], BCBS [Basel Committee on Banking Supervision], and CGFS [Committee on the Global Financial System], working with accounting standard setters, should take forward, with a deadline of end 2009, implementation of the recommendations published today to mitigate procyclicality, including a requirement for banks to build buffers of resources in good times that they can draw down when conditions deteriorate.” Declaration on Strengthening the Financial System, G20, April 2009. (4) Addressing Procyclicality in the Financial System, Financial Stability Forum, April 2009. From a letter opposing the Perlmutter amendment, from Ernst & Young CEO Jim Turley: The Perlmutter accounting amendment is fundamentally flawed. Under the amendment, financial institution regulators – through their majority membership on the underlying bill’s systemic risk council — would be able to set or suspend generally accepted accounting principles for the entire corporate community. The amendment confuses the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission and prudential supervisors of financial institutions. The primary objective of accounting standards is to meet the needs of investors and capital markets with transparent financial information. On the other hand, the primary objective of prudential oversight is to foster the safety and soundness and financial stability of regulated financial institutions. The amendment wrongly confuses who is responsible for what and ignores the existing authority of prudential regulators and the SEC to act as warranted. While the amendment has received backing from representatives of the financial services industry, it is opposed by a wide variety of corporate, investor, and capital market players including American Council for Capital Formation, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, CalPERS, Center for Audit Quality, Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, Council of Institutional Investors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, Financial Executives International, Grant Thornton LLP, Institute of Management Accountants, Investment Company Institute, KPMG LLP, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Read the full article →

SEC, CFTC Propose to Expand Exchange Oversight, Sharing More Market Data

October 16, 2009

By Tina Seeley and Jesse Westbrook Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed expanding oversight of exchanges and sharing market surveillance data as part of 20 recommendations to close regulatory gaps. The agencies, in a joint report to Congress today, responded to the Obama administration’s request to strengthen regulation of financial industries. “Government could have done more” to prevent the financial crisis, the administration said in June when it sought the plan to “harmonize” rules. The report is a “pretty good opening salvo in terms of both finding ways to work together practically” and filling in gaps between the agencies, Geoffrey Aronow , a former director of enforcement for the CFTC, said in a telephone interview today. “Almost all of these issues have been lurking in one form or another for years.” The need for greater collaboration between the agencies, which regulate futures and securities markets, has previously prompted calls to merge them, an option not among the report’s recommendations. Former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox told Congress last year that he “strongly” supported a merger. The SEC and CFTC urged Congress in the 96-page report to approve legislation that would subject money managers to a uniform fiduciary standard whether they invest in securities or futures. A fiduciary duty requires that investment firms put clients’ interests before their own. ‘Legal Certainty’ The agencies said they want Congress to establish clear guidelines for jurisdiction over new financial products. Such legislation should establish “legal certainty” about which agency regulates which products and establish a review process to ensure that “jurisdictional disputes” are resolved quickly, the SEC and CFTC said. When the SEC and CFTC have disagreed over which agency has jurisdiction “there occasionally have been lengthy delays attendant to bringing new products to market,” the agencies said in the report. “The lack of legal certainty is costly and confusing to market participants and it can impede innovation” and “undermine competition.” The agencies will “work up some language” to put the recommendations into effect and share it with lawmakers already pursuing regulatory overhaul legislation, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said on a conference call with reporters today. “This report is another step forward in our efforts to reform the regulatory landscape,” Mary Schapiro , chairman of the SEC, said on the call. “We will help to rebuild confidence and protect the integrity of our markets.” The report was released more than two weeks after a Sept. 30 deadline set by the Obama administration. Public Disclosure The agencies will try to align their public-disclosure obligations for hedge fund managers in securities and futures, they said in the report. The regulators also plan to deal with the disclosure of performance track records and record-keeping requirements. The report calls for legislation to enhance the CFTC’s authority over exchanges and clearinghouses and their compliance with existing law, provisions reflected in financial overhaul measures already being discussed in Congress. Some of the changes would reverse “limitations that were put on the CFTC” in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, said Aronow, who is now a partner with Bingham McCutchen LLP in Washington. ‘Disruptive Trading’ The report recommends legislation to give the CFTC authority to require foreign boards of trade to register with the agency and to act against “disruptive trading practices.” Those include trades known as “banging the close” or “spoofing,” Gensler said. “We want to enhance the statute by prohibiting disruptive practices, which often would also be considered manipulation,” he said. Gensler said the agency is also seeking to enhance its ability to police insider trading, by expanding rules to include any misuse of non-public information from other governmental agencies. The SEC and CFTC should align their record-retention requirements, according to the report. The SEC intends to review its current three-year and six-year requirements for holding records, and consider bringing the rules in line with the CFTC’s five-year requirement, the report says. Emerging Risks The report recommends the agencies create a joint advisory committee to identify emerging regulatory risks, as well as an enforcement task force “to harness synergies from shared market surveillance data” and improve market oversight. The Obama administration, in its June request for changes, said many differences in regulation of securities and futures markets “are no longer justified.” “In particular, the growth of derivatives markets and the introduction of new derivative instruments have highlighted the need for addressing gaps and inconsistencies in the regulation of these products by the CFTC and SEC,” the administration said. The SEC and CFTC held two joint hearings last month on harmonizing their rules. They heard from exchanges, including CME Group Inc. and NYSE Euronext, consumer groups and organizations representing traders. Derivatives Legislation The House Financial Services Committee approved legislation yesterday to expand oversight of derivatives markets, which will become part of a broader effort to overhaul financial regulation. Gensler said he wanted to “build upon” the “very strong” derivatives legislation, sponsored by committee Chairman Barney Frank , a Massachusetts Democrat. “We think this covers the appropriate goals of requiring the clearing and requiring the trading, and it’s just quantitatively we want to bring some more people into it,” said Gensler. The House Agriculture Committee, led by Chairman Collin Peterson , a Minnesota Democrat, will take up its proposed derivatives legislation on Oct. 21. To contact the reporters on this story: Tina Seeley in Washington at tseeley@bloomberg.net ; Jesse Westbrook in Washington at jwestbrook1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Afghanistan Troop Debate Splits Senate Democrats as Obama Weighs Strategy

October 11, 2009

By Daniel Whitten and Jesse Westbrook Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) — Two senior Senate Democrats expressed differences on the need for additional combat troops in Afghanistan as President Barack Obama weighs a strategy for fighting the resurgent Taliban there. Senator Dianne Feinstein , a California Democrat who heads the Select Committee on Intelligence, urged Obama to take the recommendations made by General Stanley McChrystal , which include adding more soldiers in Afghanistan. “I don’t know how you put somebody in who was as crackerjack as General McChrystal, who gives the president very solid recommendations, and not take those recommendations,” Feinstein said on ABC’s “This Week” program. Senator Carl Levin , a Michigan Democrat, opposed adding more troops than the 68,000 the U.S. is scheduled to have in the country by the end of this year. “At this time, don’t send more combat troops,” Levin, who heads the Armed Services Committee, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today. “The surge that will work in Afghanistan will be a surge in Afghan troops.” Obama is considering whether to continue with a war strategy he approved in March that emphasizes protecting and supporting Afghan civilians and training local army and police to combat the Taliban. McChrystal, his commander in the country, in an Aug. 30 assessment warned that the U.S. risks failure without more troops. “The mission is in serious jeopardy,” Feinstein said. “I think the counterinsurgency strategy, which means protecting the people, not shooting from afar, but securing, taking, holding, and providing security for a period of time is really critical.” 40,000 More Troops Senator John McCain , the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, says McChrystal is seeking to add 30,000 to 40,000 troops. Today McCain said it will take at least 40,000 additional U.S. soldiers to win in Afghanistan and cautioned the Obama administration against a “half-measure.” “The great danger now is not an American pullout,” McCain, who was his party’s 2008 presidential nominee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program today. “The great danger is a half-measure” that tries to “please all ends of the political spectrum.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , a Kentucky Republican, said “Republicans almost overwhelmingly” would support a request by Obama for more troops. He appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” Al-Qaeda Sanctuary Administration officials have argued that al-Qaeda, which was based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan when it carried out terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001, could once again find sanctuary there if the Taliban returns to power. A U.S.-led coalition ousted Taliban rule in Afghanistan eight years ago. Robert Gibbs , Obama’s press secretary, said Oct. 9 that the administration is “probably several weeks away” from deciding on a new strategy in Afghanistan. McCain today urged Obama to act quickly. “He needs to use deliberate speed,” McCain, a U.S. Navy veteran and former prisoner of war in Vietnam who represents Arizona, said on CNN. “Our allies in the region are beginning to get the impression that perhaps we are wavering.” Al-Qaeda Expansion Lawmakers in both parties expressed concern today that if the U.S. allows Afghanistan to fall to the Taliban, al-Qaeda could expand throughout the region, including into Pakistan. “You can’t de-link Pakistan and Afghanistan,” said Saxby Chambliss , a Republican senator from Georgia on ABC’s “This Week” program. “If Afghanistan falls, if we pull out and it goes totally in the hands of the Taliban,” Chambliss said, “we know that the neighboring country has the opportunity to be really invaded or encroached upon by bad guys.” This month there has been a series of fresh attacks in Afghanistan including a suicide bombing outside India’s embassy in Kabul. In Pakistan last week, a car bombing killed 50 people in the northwestern city of Peshawar. Today the Pakistani army announced that it had ended a 22-hour siege by Islamic fighters at the Army headquarters Rawalpindi, freeing 39 hostages. Pakistan’s government blames recent attacks on Taliban militants based in the ethnic Pashtun tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. It is preparing a fresh offensive against the Taliban, in the tribal region of Waziristan. “The situation in Pakistan is extremely complicated,” Jack Reed , a Rhode Island Democrat, said on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “Letting al-Qaeda continue to reconstitute in Pakistan” while focusing on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 is what is “causing us problems today,” he said. To contact the reporters on this story: Jesse Westbrook in Washington at jwestbrook1@bloomberg.net ; Daniel Whitten in Washington at dwhitten2@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Jen Exits Morgan Stanley With Dollar Smile Giving BlueGold Capital Insight

October 7, 2009

By Ye Xie and Anchalee Worrachate Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) — As a currency strategist and economist at Morgan Stanley for 13 years, Stephen Jen made market calls and forecasts. It was up to clients to decide whether to buy or sell based on his recommendations. Now, Jen is the one doing the buying and selling. In May, he joined London-based hedge fund firm BlueGold Capital Management LLP to oversee a trading portfolio while serving as managing director of macroeconomics and currencies. He declined to reveal his returns so far. “I am still learning,” Jen, 43, says. “I have been in this industry for more than 10 years, and I hadn’t taken any meaningful risk,” says Jen, who started as a strategist at Morgan Stanley in Asia and later became head of global currency research in London. “That’s something I decided to tackle.” As a firm, BlueGold, which specializes in commodities and has $1.4 billion under management, gained 50 percent so far this year after fees, following returns of 209 percent in 2008, Jen said in mid-September. At Morgan Stanley, Jen led a research team whose market calls resulted in gains that outpaced market benchmarks in recent years, including during the unprecedented turmoil in 2008. A model portfolio built by the firm to track the performance of the team’s recommendations and weightings returned 27.2 percent from April 2004, when it was created, through 2008. That compares with 8.3 percent for the benchmark Barclay Currency Traders Index in the same period. Krugman Student Jen, who studied under Nobel laureate Paul Krugman and the late economist Rudiger Dornbusch while pursuing a doctorate in economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, made his mark at Morgan Stanley with studies of big­picture issues ranging from global trade imbalances to the growth of sovereign wealth funds. Some, like the “dollar-smile” theory he developed in 2001 which predicts gains for the greenback during times when the U.S. economy is either in a deep slump or growing strongly, and underperformance for the dollar during times of moderate growth ran against the grain and only gradually gained acceptance when the market validated his views. By the time he left Morgan Stanley, Jen’s distribution list had grown to 3,000 clients and market participants. “He has an ability to separate trend from noise and keep a level head in a business that can cause people a lot of distractions,” says David Gerstenhaber , founder of New York- based Argonaut Management LP, who formerly worked at investor Julian Robertson’s Tiger Management LLC in the 1990s. “He’s not stuck with traditional ­analysis, and he’s willing to come up with independent thoughts.” Dollar Slump In July 2008, as the dollar slumped against most major currencies, Jen was among the first forecasters to correctly predict the greenback’s turnaround, foreseeing that investors would flock to the safety of the U.S. currency amid slowing global growth and mounting financial instability. In September 2008, Jen told Morgan Stanley clients in a research note that Brazil’s real, trading at a near 10-year high against the dollar, was one of the most-vulnerable currencies and would be “stress-tested” on capital flight. The real touched 2.62 on Dec. 5, a 45 percent decline from when Jen published his note. “My view is that when the world shifts into a crisis mode, anything is possible,” Jen says. “Whatever you think could happen, double the magnitude.” Varied Background Jen’s varied background in both the public and private sectors helped shape his perspective on markets and economies. Born in Taiwan, Jen moved to California with his mother and three siblings when he was 14 for the educational opportunities available in the U.S. His father, a former military officer, stayed behind in Taipei and supported the family. Jen received an undergraduate degree in engineering from the University of California, Irvine, before pursuing a doctorate in economics at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he studied international economics under Krugman. After graduating in 1992, he landed a job at the International Monetary Fund, where he worked on frameworks for providing loan relief to indebted countries, particularly in eastern Europe. Jen left the IMF in late 1996 to join Morgan Stanley, which gave him the choice of covering Latin American currencies out of New York, eastern European currencies out of London or Asian currencies out of Hong Kong. Jen says he chose Asia because he thought it would be a tranquil and stable place where he could get used to his new job. “I wanted to go somewhere safe,” he says. Learning Firsthand Instead, he learned firsthand about how markets are buffeted in crises. Several weeks after he arrived in Hong Kong in January 1997, he says he felt “something was not quite right,” even as economies from Thailand to South Korea experienced explosive growth. He recalled an article Krugman wrote three years earlier that attacked the “Asian economic miracle” as a myth, arguing that the economies’ reliance on foreign capital for growth wasn’t sustainable. By February 1997, Jen started telling clients to sell Asian currencies. Five months later, Thailand was forced to devalue the baht. The Thai currency lost more than half of its value in four months. The crisis spread to the whole region, dragging down currencies and economies from South Korea to Indonesia. Wrong Call Jen made one of his first serious wrong calls in December 1997 when he forecast the continued collapse of Asian currencies. Instead, the currencies bounced back as the weaker exchange rates boosted exports, which helped to foster a recovery. “I completely missed that,” he says. Jen learned the lesson that emerging-market currencies are highly influenced by capital flows. This often leads to sharp sell-offs followed by rallies. During a crisis, cherry-picking good currencies won’t work, as investors liquidate everything at hand. “That one-year period really taught me a great deal about the market,” Jen says. “It taught me how quickly people’s opinion changed and how powerful the capital flows may be.” Jen stayed in Hong Kong until 1999, when he moved to London to cover the dollar and other major currencies. In 2007, Jen was among the first to flag the growing importance of sovereign wealth funds as a source of global capital and to recognize the potential implications for markets and currencies. Foreign Reserves He estimated in a May 2007 Morgan Stanley research note that total assets controlled by the funds, which are pools of capital that Asian nations and oil-producing countries in the Middle East and Europe derived from their foreign reserves, would grow to $12 trillion by 2015, almost the size of the U.S. economy. “Asset allocation, pension funds, reserve policy, currency policies of Asia-all of these issues are somehow nicely and neatly tied together by this topic,” Jen says. He revised his growth figure to $10 trillion in October 2008 as the funds, including Temasek Holdings Pte and China Investment Corp., suffered investment losses during the financial crisis. Jen sees little risk of the dollar losing its status as the world’s reserve currency anytime soon. His view stems partly from the fact that the U.S. is the biggest economy, with the deepest financial markets. It also reflects his own immigrant experience, he says. ‘No Conditions’ “America welcomed our family with no conditions,” says Jen, who lives in the South Kensington area of London with his German wife, Manuela. Their twins — a son and a daughter ­- turn 2 years old on Nov. 19. “I have respect for the U.S. because the system is right and it works. It’s easy and tempting to underestimate Americans, but that’s almost always a mistake.” In making his call on the dollar last year, Jen applied the dollar-smile theory he and his former colleague Fatih Yilmaz developed at Morgan Stanley eight years ago in London. The theory, which derives its name from the shape made by the dollar’s price movement on a graph during various economic scenarios, holds that the U.S. currency rallies when the world’s largest economy is in either a deep recession or a boom. It weakens when growth is moderate, as investors shift their money into higher-yielding markets for better returns. The two strategists came up with the theory as they sought an answer to the question of why the dollar continued to gain in 2001 even as the U.S. slipped into recession and the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates. Prevailing Wisdom The prevailing wisdom at the time, based on trade balances and interest-rate comparisons, suggested the opposite would happen. What the consensus views missed, Jen says, was how, during times of global uncertainty and economic contraction, investors tend to pile into the dollar as the currency of last resort. “If you really think about it, it’s actually quite intuitive, but you have to first accept the special status of the dollar in the world,” he says. “You cannot treat the dollar as any other currency.” This year, after starting out strong against most major currencies, the dollar has weakened as more than $2 trillion of stimulus funding by governments stabilized financial markets and set the stage for a recovery, reversing the flight to the safety of the U.S. currency. Smile ‘Gutter’ Now, Jen says, the dollar is approaching the “gutter” of the smile, and he predicts that a slow U.S. recovery will weaken the greenback further against currencies such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, the pound and emerging-market currencies by year-end. The pound will rise as high as $1.75 by year-end from $1.62 at the end of August, and the Australian currency will advance to 90 U.S. cents from 83 cents, while oil prices will rise, he says. Next year, Jen predicts, the greenback will outperform the euro, the yen and the pound as U.S. growth gathers momentum, while continuing to weaken against emerging-market currencies, which benefit the most from the global growth. Jen first started managing money in his last months at Morgan Stanley. “I had a small book for myself for three months, and I truly enjoyed it,” he says. “I learned a lot from being with the traders.” He resigned from Morgan Stanley in April after BlueGold approached him and promised him a bigger portfolio to manage. His education continues. “Trading requires skills that are not required as a strategist,” he says. “As a risk taker, how you control emotions is absolutely critical.” That means not letting yourself get carried away. “When you make a lot of money, your natural emotion is that you are right, and you want to make more money and increase your positions,” he says. “To me, it’s one of the most challenging things. The trick is to convert the themes into actionable market ideas.” To contact the reporters on this story: Ye Xie in New York at yxie6@bloomberg.net ;

Read the full article →

Republican Opposition to Sotomayor Widens Partisan Gulf Over Supreme Court

August 6, 2009

By Greg Stohr Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) — Overwhelming Republican opposition to Sonia Sotomayor ’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination, as the Senate nears a decision to confirm her, widens a partisan gulf that has lawmakers voting on ideology rather than qualifications. The Senate will vote today on Sotomayor, President Barack Obama ’s first Supreme Court nominee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , a Nevada Democrat, announced last night the vote will occur about 3 p.m. Washington time. Democrats control the chamber 60-40, ensuring that Sotomayor will become the first Hispanic and third woman ever to serve on the court. With at least 30 Republicans set to vote against her, Sotomayor will become the third nominee in a row to be opposed by at least half the minority party’s senators, following George W. Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito . The vote will mark the first time that three successive nominations have received more than 20 votes in opposition. “We have allowed ideology to hold a preeminent role as opposed to qualifications,” said Florida Republican Mel Martinez , who has announced his support for Sotomayor. “I find it very, very appalling.” Much like the Democrats who opposed Roberts, Republicans almost universally acknowledged Sotomayor had the experience and intellect to serve on the high court. “There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee,” Republican John McCain of Arizona said on the Senate floor this week. ‘Troubling Record’ McCain nonetheless said he would vote against Sotomayor, 55, faulting her for a “troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law.” He pointed to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Sotomayor in several recent cases. Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas said that most of Sotomayor’s rulings were “within the mainstream of American jurisprudence.” At the same time, he said he will vote against her in part because of speeches suggesting that ethnicity and gender should influence a judge’s decisions. The stances taken by Republicans are similar to the positions taken by many Democrats in opposing Roberts and Alito. Roberts received 22 of 44 Democratic votes for his nomination to become chief justice in 2005, while Alito got support from just four Democrats in 2006. In 2005, then-Senator Obama said there was “absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.” Obama voted against Roberts, saying “he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak” in his work as a lawyer. No More Unanimity “We will no longer see unanimous or near-unanimous votes on nominees because at least 15 to 20 senators from each party have indicated that they are willing to vote a nominee down primarily on ideological grounds,” said David Yalof , a political science professor at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. He is the author of “Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees.” Republicans hinted that the Sotomayor vote was payback. Cornyn pointed to the Democrats’ success in scuttling Bush’s nomination of Miguel Estrada to a federal appeals court in Washington. Some conservatives had been eyeing Estrada as a candidate to become the first Hispanic justice. The polarization of the Senate on high court appointments is unprecedented, at least as measured by vote totals. The last time three straight nominees drew even 10 opposition votes apiece was in 1888 and 1889, when Democrat Grover Cleveland nominated Lucius Lamar and Melville Fuller and Republican Benjamin Harrison selected David Brewer. Lamar was confirmed 32-28, Fuller 41-20 and Brewer 53-11. Jackson Nominations In the 1830s, four successive Andrew Jackson nominees were opposed by at least 11 senators, and one was defeated. Most nominees have received token opposition if that. President Bill Clinton ’s appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer , were confirmed by a combined vote of 183-12. Clinton made those selections based in part on the recommendations of Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, then the Judiciary Committee’s top Republican. When controversies have arisen, they have generally dissipated after the president offered a compromise candidate. President Richard Nixon ’s nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell were defeated before the Senate unanimously confirmed Nixon’s third choice, Harry Blackmun , in 1970. In 1987 the Senate rejected Robert Bork ’s nomination and President Ronald Reagan withdrew his next choice, Douglas Ginsburg , amid revelations he smoked marijuana as a law professor. The Senate then unanimously confirmed Anthony Kennedy . NRA Opposition Republican opposition to Sotomayor was fueled by interest groups, including the National Rifle Association, which opposed her and said the vote would count in its ratings of senators. That pressure was enough to persuade some senators to run the political risk of opposing the first Hispanic nominee. The Republican votes suggest that those interest groups have “an awful lot of clout,” said Christopher L. Eisgruber , provost of Princeton University in New Jersey and author of “The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process.” He added, “What I think is difficult to see at this point is exactly what kind of person President Obama could nominate who would not provoke some significant opposition from the minority party.” To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Hedge Fund Fees Firm With Market Rebound as LBO Fees Bow to Pension Losses

August 2, 2009

By Katherine Burton Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) — Larry Powell , deputy investment chief for the $16 billion Utah Retirement Systems , was convinced in January that hedge funds finally would buckle under the pressure of record losses in 2008 and lower their fees. He figured it was appropriate to insist on a reduction in the standard industry charge of 2 percent of assets and 20 percent of gains on investments as low as $25 million, according to a memo Powell circulated with hedge funds and investors. Performance fees should be assessed only after a minimum return is exceeded and paid over several years rather than annually, he said.

Read the full article →

Best Stock Picks Made by Brokers in Study as Sell-Side Beats Fund Research

July 31, 2009

By Eric Martin July 31 (Bloomberg) — Stock recommendations from Wall Street brokerages produced bigger profits than picks by analysts working for money managers, according to a study of equity research from 1997 to 2004. Shares chosen by so-called sell-side analysts performed more than three times better than the companies selected for mutual funds, according to the survey by professors from Harvard Business School and the University of North Carolina. The study was released today after provisions of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer ’s six-year-old pact regulating Wall Street research expired

Read the full article →

Treasury Keeping Taxpayers in Dark on Bank Rescue Details, Lawmakers Say

July 21, 2009

By Catherine Dodge July 21 (Bloomberg) — U.S. lawmakers accused the Obama administration of inadequately informing the public about how the government is spending the $700 billion bank-rescue funds

Read the full article →