science

10 Great Careers For Post 50s

by money.msn.com on February 11, 2012

Huffington Post…

If you want to be a fashion model, bike messenger or ball boy, it pays to be young. However, if you want a job in which you’re expected to convey reliability, wisdom or gravitas, you have an advantage if you’re over 50.

Continue reading here:
10 Great Careers For Post 50s

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

{ 0 comments }

U.S. Calls Big Swiss Bank A ‘Fugitive’

by AP on February 11, 2012

Huffington Post…

NEW YORK — The U.S. Justice Department called Switzerland’s largest private bank a fugitive from justice on Friday after it didn’t send any representatives to a court hearing in New York, where it has been charged with conspired with American clients to hide $1.2 billion from the Internal Revenue Service. Wegelin & Co. is accused of helping at least 100 U.S. clients conceal huge sums of money from the IRS in overseas accounts. Federal prosecutors said the bank recruited American customers who were concerned about possible prosecution for tax violations at home, including some that had already pulled money out of other Swiss banks because of growing pressure from U.S. law enforcement. Three of the bank’s client advisers were indicted in January. The bank was added as a defendant in the case on Feb. 2 U.S. officials, however, have yet to find a way to move the case forward. The three Wegelin advisers charged in the case, Michael Berlinka, Urs Frei and Roger Keller, have not been arrested and the Justice Department has decided that any attempt to extradite them from Switzerland is unlikely to succeed. The bank was summoned to appear before a federal judge in New York on Friday at 3 p.m., but neither a bank officer nor a lawyer showed. In a statement issued in Switzerland after the court hearing, the bank said it had not been properly served with the criminal summons, and was therefore under no obligation to appear in court. As for the charges, the bank suggested that there was a conflict between US and Swiss law. “The circumstances create a clear dilemma for Wegelin & Co: If it were to adhere to current US legal practice aimed at Swiss banks, it would have to breach Swiss law,” the statement said. The bank added that it would “make every effort to resolve this matter within the boundaries of respectful cooperation.” It is unclear what prosecutors can do next. Wegelin doesn’t have an office in the U.S. Federal authorities have frozen $16 million that the bank had in a correspondent account in the U.S., but that amount is tiny compared to the large sums involved. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who is presiding over the case, asked prosecutors to make a proposal on how to move the prosecution forward, and suggested involving the State Department, but the hearing ended without any immediate resolution.

See the original post here:
U.S. Calls Big Swiss Bank A ‘Fugitive’

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

{ 0 comments }

Carla Holtze: 2012: A Shopper’s Odyssey

February 11, 2012

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

Read the full article →

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

February 11, 2012

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

Read the full article →

‘Joe The Plumber’: ‘I Don’t Have To Try’ To Stand Out At CPAC (VIDEO)

February 11, 2012

WASHINGTON — HuffPost’s Zach Carter and Howard Fineman on Friday spoke with Joseph Wurzelbacher at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference. Wurzelbacher is also known as ” Joe the Plumber ,” a name he was dubbed during the 2008 presidential campaign when he was portrayed as a symbol of middle-class America. CPAC is a major annual event for the conservative movement, and on Friday GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich all addressed large crowds. Yet Wurzelbacher told HuffPost he has no problem distinguishing himself. “I don’t have to try,” he said. “My name is Joe Wurzelbacher. I’m going to speak the truth. And I don’t have to remember what I said five years ago or three years from now because it’ll always be the same thing — because it’s the truth.” Wurzelbacher is now running as a Republican candidate for Congress in the 9th District of Ohio.

Read the full article →

WATCH: Tilted Kilt Employees File Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

February 10, 2012

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

Read the full article →

Fake Suicide Call Prompts Woman To Sue Big Bank

February 10, 2012

These days, debt collectors are putting some people through so much pain that it’s landing them in the hospital. Anne Sessions of Lane County, Oregon is suing Wells Fargo after one of its debt collectors reported to police that that the 85-year-old was threatening suicide, a claim she maintains was false, The Oregonian reports . After hitting financial trouble, Sessions says she arranged a payment plan for her credit card debt with Wells Fargo last year, but just days later she allegedly received a call from a debt collector who badgered her with a “contemptous tone,” according to the lawsuit. Sessions told the collector that such abuse may cause other customers to take their own lives, which allegedly prompted a line of questioning that included the collector asking Sessions: “But…if you did [commit suicide], how would you do it – hurt yourself?” Courthouse News reports . Within a half hour police arrived at Sessions’ door and forcibly took her to the hospital. She was released hours later after hospital staff said they “strongly” believed Sessions was not a threat to herself or others, ABC News reports . But the incident left Sessions stuck with a hospital bill worth $1,055, for which she is seeking compensation, as well as $250,000 in punitive damages. Sessions’ suit may involve one of the more puzzling instances of debt collector abuse recently, but harassment of its kind is far from uncommon. Complaints filed to the Federal Trade Commission about debt collectors rose to 140,036 in 2010, up from 119,609 in 2009 . The boost may be explained in part by the industry’s growth in a troubled economy that’s caused many Americans to delay debt payments. Over the next three years, the debt collection industry is expected to expand by 26 percent . Indeed, all the negative reports — collection agencies are responsible for the most complaints to the FTC of any industry — may be beginning to take a toll. The FTC has begun cracking down on illegal debt collecting tactics , including repeated calls to the debtors, failure to notify consumers in writing of their rights, misrepresenting the debt in question as well as using profanity or threats. Last month it settled with Michigan-based debt collection company Asset Acceptance for $2.5 million on charges of misconduct . It also took action against two California-based collection agencies last year, one for attempting to collect debts that didn’t exist and the other for threatening to kill debtors pets and desecrete the bodies of deceased family members .

Read the full article →

Adele Scheele: Making Meetings Mean Something

February 10, 2012

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

Read the full article →

The Most HIlarious #FedValentines

February 10, 2012

Whoever said monetary policy isn’t sexy just doesn’t know what they’re talking about. In anticipation of Valentine’s Day, the twitterverse is abuzz with economics nerds tweeting sweet nothings using the hashtag #FedValentines , of course in reference to the Federal Reserve. You can’t blame them. With the Fed’s head, Ben Bernanke, constantly discussing stimulus tactics like quantitative easing, the urge for double entendre is hard to resist. The trend comes as Bernanke addressed the National Association of Homebuilders International Builders’ Show Friday, saying that the Fed’s efforts at spurring economic growth are being thwarted by obstacles to mortgage lending, according to Bloomberg. Tragically, the bearded, bald hearthrob didn’t offer his own #FedValentine during the speech, but rest assured we’ll update this post if that changes. That’s not to say the regional federal reserves themselves can’t have some fun on a Friday. According to its twitter feed , the San Francisco Federal Reserve is “going through extraordinary measures to increase your stimulus.” Check out some of our favorite #Fedvalentines, to get a sense of love in the time of near-record low interest rates:

Read the full article →

The 10 Tech Companies Taking The Biggest Stand Against Climate Change

February 10, 2012

How are some of the world’s biggest IT companies taking a stand against a climate change? A list released by Greenpeace this week ranks some of the world’s largest information technology companies based on their efforts to mitigate climate change. The fifth edition of the Cool IT Leaderboard puts Google at the top, with Cisco and Ericsson grabbing second and third. According to a press release , the list “ranks 21 IT companies on their clean energy leadership potential, willingness to embrace clean energy solutions and potential to influence energy decisions.” Neither Apple nor Facebook were included in the list, as they have not pursued “market opportunities to drive IT energy solutions” to the same extent as others, according to Greenpeace. Greenpeace International IT analyst Gary Cook said, “Technology giants have a real opportunity to use their power and influence to change how we produce and use energy — Google tops the table because it’s putting its money where its mouth is by pumping investment into renewable energy.” As Wired notes, the highest scoring company, Google, only received a score of 53 out of 100 . Cisco was last year’s winner, with 70 points, but dropped to 49 this year. Greenpeace says Cisco’s fall is due to “a much less forceful support for priority climate and energy policies.” For more information on some of the greenest companies around, check out Newsweek’s 2011 list of the 30 greenest tech companies . List courtesy of Greenpeace . Read their full report here . Scroll down for the companies ranked 11-21. The companies which did not make the top 10 include: 11. Wipro 12. Dell 13. Microsoft 14. SAP 15. AT&T 16. HCL 17. NTT 18. NEC 19. TCS 20. Telefónica 21. Oracle

Read the full article →

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

February 10, 2012

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

Read the full article →

The Story Of Obama’s Brush With Political Disaster

February 10, 2012

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

Read the full article →

The States Where Companies Are Hiring

February 10, 2012

From 24/7 Wall St.: Companies across the country are hiring more workers, at least if you ask their employees. In 2011, 31 percent of U.S. workers reported that their employers were hiring, according to Gallup’s Job Creation Index . Only 18 percent said that their employers were laying workers off. Of course, residents of some states report much higher rates of job creation than others. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the Gallup Index, as well as a number of other economic indicators, and identified the eight states where residents think companies are hiring most. Read The Eight States Where Companies Are Hiring To develop the Job Creation Index, Gallup asked those surveyed whether companies are hiring or letting employees go. While the national score reflects that most states believe employers are hiring, 24/7 Wall St.’s analysis suggests that self-reporting by workers may not perfectly align with reality. These states are not experiencing the greatest recoveries — including in employment — as they have little to recover from. The states’ strong economies may be affecting their residents’ perception of the economy. Five of the eight states on this list are among the top nine states on another recent Gallup poll ranking states’ confidence in the national economy. Those who live in states that are doing well see the entire country as doing well. The majority of states where high percentages of workers reported job creation also have extremely low unemployment rates to begin with. Six of the eight states have among the 10 lowest unemployment rates in the country. North Dakota, the state where the largest share of workers reported that their employers are hiring, has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. And while unemployment rates are low, the majority of these states have had relatively low unemployment rates for some time. Most did not have particularly impressive improvements in unemployment last year. Other than Utah and West Virginia — the only states with exceptionally large drops in unemployment — the rest have had low unemployment rates since 2006 and throughout the recession. Housing markets in most of the states where respondents believe jobs are plentiful also have been stable. Seven of the eight states on the list are among the 15 markets that suffered the least from the third quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2011. Five of the states actually experienced increases in home prices over this period. These are the eight states where workers say companies are hiring, according to 24/7 Wall St. :

Read the full article →

Another Big Bank Slashes Its Bonus Pool

February 10, 2012

LONDON — Barclays PLC revealed Friday that it is slashing its bonus pool after earnings at its investment banking division fell sharply and dented overall profitability. The bank said it was taking the action as it reported that its profit after taxes fell 15 percent last year to 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) from 3.56 billion pounds the year before even though income rose 2.6 percent to 33 billion pounds. Much of the profit decline was due to a 32 percent fall in pretax profit at the Barclays Capital investment banking unit to 2.97 billion pounds. The bank said the average bonus for Barclays Capital employees will be 64,000 pounds ($101,000), down 30 percent from 2010. The total bonus pool was cut by 25 percent and the average bonus per employee will be 21 percent lower at 15,200 pounds. “We need to balance remaining competitive with being responsive to the public mood,” Chief Executive Bob Diamond told reporters after the publication of the results. Bonuses are a highly sensitive political issue in Britain, particularly at Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group which were bailed out by taxpayers. Lloyds chief executive Antonio Horta-Osorio and RBS CEO Stephen Hester have both waived their bonuses, though Hester did so only after coming under intense political pressure. Barclays said bonuses for executive directors and the eight highest paid senior executive officers would be down 48 versus 2010 on a like-for-like basis. Diamond received a bonus in shares worth 1.8 million pounds last year. Barclays said no one would get a cash bonus of more than 65,000 pounds. A more detailed look at the results show that the bank’s adjusted pretax profit of 5.6 billion pounds fell short of the consensus forecast of 5.8 billion pounds. After initially opening lower, Barclays shares in London were trading 2.9 percent higher after an hour of trading. Richard Hunter, analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers, said the initial sell-off appeared to respond to the disappointing top line results and that the upturn fed on more positive news within the earnings report. Hunter noted a 48 percent gain in pretax profit in the retail and business banking, a return to profit in the corporate division, a 9 percent hike in the dividend to 6 pence and a “sturdy” Tier 1 capital ratio of 11 percent. Barclays shares are now at their highest level since July. A year ago they were trading at about 330 pence but fell as low as 139 pence in September.

Read the full article →

Huge Scandal Rattles San Francisco-Based Snack Company

February 9, 2012

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

Read the full article →

North Dakota Walmart Evicts Workers Living In Parking Lot

February 9, 2012

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

Read the full article →

U.S. Bans Health Insurance Company Fine Print, Allows Baffling Terms

February 9, 2012

The Obama administration aims to demystify shopping for health insurance and has created a standard form that explains in plain language without the fine print what plans actually cover. What they couldn’t do was make health insurance itself less complicated, so consumers will still be confronted by baffling terms including “allowed amount,” “balance billing,” and “usual, customary, and reasonable charges.” The health reform law requires insurance companies to use a new document that presents a uniform summary of deductibles, co-payments and other features so consumers can compare one health plan to another. The new rules also eliminate the fine print: insurers can’t use a typeface smaller than 12 points. Administration officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius unveiled the forms Thursday and companies will have to comply beginning Sept. 23. Consumer groups including Families USA and Health Care for America Now praised the policy as an important step that enhances transparency in the health insurance market. These new summaries of benefits and costs will help people choose the right health plans and are a big improvement over the confusing information and marketing material insurance companies currently use, said Lynn Quincy, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union who helped develop the new form. The “plain language” isn’t always so plain and the jargon-heavy nature of the form underscores that health insurance is complicated. While the administration will require that insurers provide a four-page glossary of industry terms , shoppers will have to contend with terminology that isn’t always easily understandable. “We don’t want to over-promise here about what a form can do laid over top a very complex product,” Quincy said. “We have to wait and see if the new form actually helps people.” The insurance summary can’t be longer than eight pages and includes facts about a plan such as what its deductibles are, whether benefits are capped at a certain dollar amount every year, and if patients need referrals to visit specialists. Though the administration proposed last year that premiums be listed, that requirement isn’t part of the final rule. The monthly price for a health plan, which may not be available until after an insurance company has reviewed a customer’s application, will be provided separately. The form includes examples of medical expenses, such as the birth of a child, so consumers can estimate how much would be covered by insurance and how much would come out of their own pockets. The administration characterizes this feature as a “Nutrition Facts” label for health benefits. The health insurance industry’s top lobbyist said the rule places too heavy a burden on companies and takes effect too quickly. “The final rule requires an almost complete overhaul and redesign of how information must be provided to consumers,” Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement .

Read the full article →

Marc Joseph: Is It Time To Be an Entrepreneur?

February 9, 2012

Open Forum reports that there is an 11% increase in the number of small businesses closing and a 17% decline in the number of small businesses opening. Get Busy Median reports 69% of small businesses survive at least two years, 44% of new firms survive four years and 31% survive at least seven years. The Orange County Register states that new employer businesses has fallen 27% since 2006, which means that startups, which 10 years ago would have created 4.6 million jobs, are only creating 2.5 million jobs now. Also, 10 years ago the average new business opened with 7.5 jobs and today it is 4.9 jobs. Smart Money states that in 2009, there were 552,600 new businesses created while 721,737 small firms closed or went bankrupt. They go on to report that in 2007, 75% of angel funded deals came at the start up stage, while in the first half of 2011 only 39% of companies backed by angels were in the startup phase. This trend is just one more sign of how hard the recession has been on entrepreneurs. This recession has not only hurt sales, sending many small businesses under, it has also obstructed the ability to raise money for the next great idea. So why would anyone in their right mind risk their money and reputation for only one in three chance of being in business after seven years? Bloomberg Businessweek reported this week that the Wal-Mart greeter job, which has been around for 30 years, has been removed from the overnight shift of its stores. Obviously they will be using those hours more productively for tasks like stocking shelves or just eliminating the hours all together. Every generation loses entire job categories — think milkmen. So are today’s entrepreneurs desperate and opening a business because they just can’t find a job? Let’s hope not, because that is almost a guarantee your business will fall into the two thirds that fail. Clearly you need a good idea, product or service before even thinking about opening up your own business. Assuming you have this great idea, then the next hurdle is: do you have the traits to run your own business? Some needed traits include being a self-starter, not getting intimidated easily, being adaptable to change, enjoying competition, being able to address risk, making decisions quickly, and not seeing mistakes as failures. Then you need to overcome the basics of starting a business like cash flow (make sure you have at least six months of savings to live from), time management, a sound business plan and the ability to wear all the hats yourself. Reading all these numbers and knowing you don’t have the equity now in your house to fund a business may be one of the most depressing things you do today. But the optimistic glass half full American entrepreneur doesn’t read these numbers like a normal human being. They say “I am going to be in the one third that succeeds and I am going to make a lot of money doing it”! We are just one small company doing our part to help grow the American dream. The rest of America needs to wake up and bring the small business numbers back to where they were at the beginning of the 21st century. Banks need to actually begin loaning money again to small businesses. The government bailed out the big businesses, and now must focus on building up Main Street again through backing small business loans, giving tax break incentives and giving government contracts to small businesses. The average American needs to support their local small business rather than running to the big box store. The numbers don’t lie. Supporting small businesses is an American team effort and we need to get those numbers back to where they were … together.

Read the full article →

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

February 9, 2012

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

Read the full article →

Steve Blank: Two Giant Steps Forward for Entrepreneurs

February 9, 2012

While entrepreneurship is in the news fairly regularly, I seldom make news myself. Today, however there are two important updates for entrepreneurs everywhere. Let me be brief… The “Startup Owner’s Manual” goes On Press Tuesday 2/14 Two years in the making and literally ten years in development, I’m proud to announce that my new book, The Startup Owners Manual , goes onto the printing press next Tuesday. This 608-page work is, as its subtitle says, “the step-by-step guide for building a great company.” It’s the result of a decade of me learning from 1,000 of entrepreneurs, corporate partners, students and scientists the best practices of what wins in startups. I’ve spent the last two years cramming knowledge into this new book. In brief, The Startup Owners Manual is far more detailed and more readable than Four Steps to the Epiphany, (most of the sentences are even finished!). In fact, you could say that all that remains from my last book are the four steps of Customer Development. Briefly, the new book Integrates Alexander Osterwalders “Business Model Canvas” as the front-end and “scorecard” for the customer discovery process. Provides separate paths and advice for web/mobile products versus physical products Offers a ton of detail and great tips on how to get, keep, and grow customers, recognizing that this happens very differently between web and physical channels. and finally it teaches a “new math” for startups: “metrics that matter. While MBA’s have had a stack of texts to help them “execute” a business model, this book joins the growing library of books for practitioners in “search” of a business model. The Lean LaunchPad Online Class My online Lean LaunchPad class has created a lot of buzz this week. As you may have heard, I was deep into the production of the lectures when I realized I was producing the wrong class. The online class was originally based on my book The Four Steps to the Epiphany . Only when I held the draft of my latest book, The Startup Owner’s Manual , in my hands, did it dawn on me that my online students deserved all the latest best practices of entrepreneurship and Customer Development. Not the stuff I taught a decade ago, but all that I’ve learned teaching the Lean LaunchPad in front of students at Stanford, Berkeley, Columbia and the National Science Foundation in the last year. And I particularly wanted to incorporate I’ve spent two years integrating into The Startup Owner’s Manual . So apologies to all of you who were expecting the class this month. I hope to get the updated version online in the next 60 days. I’ll keep you updated on this blog as we record our lectures. In the meantime, if you want to prepare for the class…or get a jump on your startup competition, you can start reading the “recommended text” for the online class right now by ordering my new book. It is recommended–not required–reading for the free online course, and I believe it will be immensely helpful to the startup community at large. Lessons Learned Startups search for business models, exisitng companies execute them There are tons of texts about execution, but a paucity of practical ones for founders on how to search The Startup Owner’s Manual is the definitive reference book for founders, investors and everyone interested in startups The Lean Launchpad on-line class will be based on the new book Steve Blank’s blog: www.steveblank.com

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Settlement Reached: Largest Bank Payout By Far Since Financial Crisis

February 9, 2012

As early as Thursday the government is expected to announce a roughly $25 billion deal with some of the nation’s largest banks to settle charges of systemic and widespread mortgage fraud, according to multiple sources close to the negotiations. The deal would be the largest payout to date from banks in the wake of the financial crisis. The settlement, 16 months in the making, could bring significant relief to those in danger of losing their homes and also much needed stability to the long-suffering housing market. Those who already lost their home, however, would receive just the smallest fraction of the money: a one-time cash payment of about $1,800 as compensation. “Their entire lives have been turned upside down and changed,” said Philip Robinson, the acting executive director of Civil Justice, a Baltimore-based nonprofit that has worked with thousands of Maryland families fighting for their homes. “Does $1,800 sound fair? Does that seem like compensation for a financial and emotional tragedy?” The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the Obama administration’s lead negotiators on the deal, could not be reached for comment. Late Wednesday night, as the terms were being finalized, more than 40 states had signed on, including New York, which had been vocal in its opposition to any deal that was soft on the banks. A source close to the negotiations said that California also was on board, but a representative from Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office would not confirm its participation. The deal between federal officials, the state attorneys general and Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial is an attempt to close the book on a scandal that erupted in 2010, freezing the housing market as the legality of thousands of bank-initiated foreclosures were called into question. The announcement is expected to crank up the pace of bank foreclosures, which has slowed as government officials investigate whether some institutions have forfeited their right to repossess homes after forging key real estate documents. As part of the deal, participating states would agree not to pursue a variety of independent lawsuits against the banks. Some consumer advocates argue that the deal is inherently too lenient on banks because the administration chose to negotiate a settlement without first conducting a full investigation into the nature and magnitude of the banks’ alleged fraud. “Any partial settlement is fraught partly because we don’t know the scope of the damages,” said Robert Borosage, founder and president of the Institute for America’s Future, a left-leaning nonprofit organization. “If the banks get broad immunity, homeowners get screwed because the next investigation won’t be able to get around that.” Under the terms of the settlement, the banks would pay $25 billion to participating states. California is reportedly receiving a total of $6 billion to $15 billion in the settlement. Potentially more significant, the banks would agree to forgive some mortgage debt owed by struggling borrowers through what’s called “principal reduction.” The remedy is nearly universally hailed by economists on the right and left as a way to revive the ailing housing market and rescue the nation’s struggling underwater borrowers: More than 20 percent of mortgage holders in the United States owe more on their loan than their home is worth. Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Bank declined to comment while requests for comment from JPMorgan Chase went unanswered. Bank of America declined to discuss the terms of the deal, instead saying, “We’re interested in finding a path forward with a comprehensive settlement that benefits homeowners and communities.” The settlement has the potential to prevent future wrongdoing through new bank guidelines that have been crafted as part of the deal. The effectiveness of these new rules will rely heavily on whether the states can enforce them. The Obama administration pushed forcefully for the deal to present it to voters in 2012 as evidence that the president is helping homeowners and getting tough on banks. Splitting a $25 billion deal between five banks, however, will amount to little more than the cost of doing business and is too small a penalty to deter future fraud, many housing advocates say. “Compared to what these [banks] literally stole, it’s just eyewash,” said Margery Golant, a Florida-based attorney who represents homeowners and formerly served as assistant general counsel at subprime mortgage giant Ocwen Financial. “These are such serious crimes and for everybody to get a pass like this, it just encourages them to think that they always will.” Also unclear is how far the agreement can go in helping borrowers who are trying to hold onto their home. In addition to granting principal reduction, the deal would offer struggling homeowners relief by changing the terms, or refinancing, loans. Those dollars amount to a pittance when you consider the millions of homeowners in need of help, Golant said. “If you do the math, that’s a few hundred million per state. That’s not enough to change anything.” Consumer advocates supportive of the deal argue that while the settlement dollars are small, the principal reduction piece is critical. A handful of lenders have already begun offering such assistance, but mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have fiercely resisted such a move. “This settlement could be a starting point for principal reduction,” said Ira Rheingold, president of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. “Hopefully it will demonstrate how principal reduction can and should benefit homeowners. If it is done well, maybe it will shame Fannie and Freddie into doing what it should have been doing all along.” Economists are also excited about the potential for principal reductions to boost the housing market. “If $15 to $20 billion is devoted to principal reduction modifications over the next year, that would significantly reduce the number of properties that ultimately end up hitting the market in a distressed sale, thus supporting housing prices,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. Included in the settlement are new rules designed to reform the policies and practices among the mortgage companies, mainly banks, that manage the loans on a daily basis and assist struggling borrowers. These new rules could finally shut down any excuses previously put forward by the banks for wrongful foreclosure — if the rules are adequately enforced, said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “The fact that the settlement has the state attorneys general behind it means that we really should see an end to some of these nefarious mortgage servicing practices,” he said. The states’ ability to enforce the deal remains one of the great unknowns. Nearly four years ago, 11 states signed an $8.4 billion settlement with Bank of America over predatory lending practices by Countrywide Financial. (Bank of America acquired Countrywide in 2008.) Most housing experts agree that the deal has significantly underperformed in large part because the states didn’t have a good mechanism for holding the bank accountable. This settlement will be different because it has a “very robust enforcement mechanism,” said Patrick Madigan, Iowa assistant attorney general and one of the lead negotiators for the Countrywide settlement and the current deal. Banks will pay substantial cash penalties if they do not deliver the full amount of homeowner assistance agreed to under the deal, according to Madigan. North Carolina’s Banking Commissioner Joseph Smith will serve as the “independent monitor” to enforce the deal’s terms. “There’s no comparison between the enforcement and monitoring of this case and Countrywide,” Madigan said. It remains to be seen, however, if these enforcement mechanisms have any teeth. Settlement supporters have high hopes for the deal, though success has to be measured against very narrow expectations, cautioned Rheingold. “In the absence of sufficient federal action, sufficient regulatory action, sufficient congressional action, what we have left is a bunch of state attorneys general saying, ‘Our homeowners are getting hurt. We have to do something.’ “But the state resources are fairly limited, so you have to look at this in terms of what the attorneys general can accomplish within their own set of powers,” Rheingold added. “Does it provide the justice necessary? Clearly not. But will it provide an opportunity for homeowners to be treated fairly? I think it will.”

Read the full article →

American Airlines Rumored To Be Considering Huge Move

February 9, 2012

* AMR creditors committee open to exploring merger * Want merger-resistant managers to look at all options * AMR has exclusive right to submit reorganization plan By Soyoung Kim and Kyle Peterson NEW YORK/CHICAGO, Feb 8 (Reuters) – Some American Airlines unsecured creditors increasingly feel the bankrupt airline should explore a deal with US Airways Group or another carrier, after hearing parent company AMR Corp’s plan to remain independent, people familiar with the situation said. Members of the unsecured creditors committee — which includes banks representing bondholders, labor, vendors and the U.S. pension protection agency — are concerned about the third-largest U.S. carrier’s prospect of staying competitive as a stand-alone airline after sitting out the latest round of mergers. They want AMR management to explore other options that may lead to a better recovery of their claims, including a potential combination with another carrier, according to people who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. US Airways has said it is considering an eventual bid for its larger rival. While different creditors have different economic interests at stake, the sources said consensus is growing at the committee on the need to look at other alternatives. Even labor unions, which traditionally do not like mergers because they come with job cuts, want to explore how a deal with a rival carrier would affect their members even though they may not necessarily favor it, the sources said. AMR’s three largest unions — pilots, flight attendants and ground-workers — all have seats on the creditors committee. For now, AMR management has the exclusive right to submit its own plan to reorganize under bankruptcy court protection, and the airline has said it wants to emerge as a stand-alone company. But creditors could petition the bankruptcy judge to terminate that right to make way for competing plans, and the committee would ultimately also need to sign off on any reorganization plan. There is no offer on the table currently, and it remains to be seen if any merger proposal by US Airways or anyone else will require concessions less painful to creditors than what is sought by AMR management. But creditors’ frustration in the ongoing restructuring talks and their interest in exploring alternatives could provide the opening for a potential suitor to step in. AMR, however, has shown no interest in a merger with US Airways or anyone else. “AMR will continue to pursue the objectives of Chapter 11 to restructure and build a new, better, more efficient and profitable airline in the best interests of all of its economic stakeholders, passengers and the public,” the company told Reuters. Industry insiders say high anti-trust hurdles make Delta an unlikely buyer for AMR. They also question how US Airways would benefit American outside of the East Coast, where US Airways has a particularly strong route network. American already has plenty of cash, a strong domestic route network and service to Europe and Asia as well as related oneworld alliance partners in London and Tokyo. Labor troubles at US Airways dating to its 2005 merger with America West are also a red flag for heavily unionized American. NO DIRECT TALKS The creditors committee has not had any direct formal talks with US Airways or any other potential merger partner, the sources said. Aside from unions, the committee includes the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC), the government agency that protects underfunded pension plans; Boeing Co, Hewlett Packard ; and the banks acting for AMR bondholders — Wilmington Trust Co, Bank of New York Mellon Corp and Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. Representatives for all these parties declined to comment. AMR’s unionized pilots, the Allied Pilots Association, would not comment on the prospect of a specific merger scenario. A spokesman for the group, Gregg Overman, said the union would review any proposal if “something comes up” and “we’ll evaluate it on the merits.” AMR’s flight attendants also declined to comment. But a source familiar with the group’s thinking said that while the union prefers to see the airline “grow and succeed” as a stand-alone company, it has so far not seen a business plan from management that would allow that to happen. The flight attendants’ union believes a merger with US Airways is “dicey at best” due to the fact that it has yet to fully integrate its labor groups after its 2005 merger with America West Airlines. The Transport Workers Union of America, which represents many ground-workers at American, is currently focused on examining AMR’s business plan released last week and will fully assess it before considering other proposals, the union said in a statement to Reuters. EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AMR filed for Chapter 11 on Nov. 29, citing a need to trim uncompetitive labor costs. The company told employees last week that it aims to cut expenses by $2 billion a year, slash about 13,000 jobs and terminate pensions. AMR also intends to generate $1 billion per year in new revenue. Delta Air Lines has hired advisors to explore its merger prospects with AMR, which would bring the No. 2 and No. 3 U.S. carriers together. US Airways is the fifth largest U.S. airline. AMR has the right to submit a reorganization plan without outside interference for 120 days after its bankruptcy filing. The judge can extend that right for up to 18 months. The exclusive period makes it difficult for an unwanted suitor to attempt a merger unless the creditors back such a move. US Airways has had a similar experience in the past. In January 2007 the airline withdrew its $9.75 billion hostile takeover bid for Delta, which was bankrupt then, after the creditors committee refused to support the move. Delta management convinced the panel the carrier would be stronger if it emerged from bankruptcy independent. Among the big carrier bankruptcies of the last ten years, only US Airways came out of Chapter 11 with a merger, and that was with smaller America West. Delta and Northwest aligned their restructurings and merged in 2008 only after each stepped out of bankruptcy. (Reporting by Soyoung Kim in New York, Kyle Peterson in Chicago and John Crawley in Washington, additional reporting by Caroline Humer; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

Read the full article →

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

February 9, 2012

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

Read the full article →

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

February 9, 2012

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

Read the full article →

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

February 8, 2012

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

Read the full article →

The Big Price Of Somali Piracy

February 8, 2012

Though many first think of Johnny Depp when pirating come up, avoiding the real-life bandits of the sea is are multi-billion dollar problem for the shipping industry. Somali pirates cost various governments and the shipping industry up to $6.9 billion last year, according to the One Earth Future Foundation , a non-profit advocacy group. Piracy off the coast of Somalia is both lucrative and common due to its location near the Gulf of Aden, an oil shipping lane that sees about 20 percent of global trade, according to Bloomberg . As a result, the cost to the shipping industry of Somali piracy alone accounts for over half of the total $9 billion in extra costs each year, according to recent figures from the Indian National Shipowners Organization . In 2011, Somali hijackings actually fell 36 percent from the year before, the Financial Times reports . Still, Somali pirates cost the shipping industry billions. Shipping companies pay about $2.7 billion in additional fuel costs to speed up ships in particularly high-danger areas. One Earth Future Foundation reports that no vessel has been hijacked when travelling 18 knots — or about 20 miles per hour — or faster . There may be have been fewer hijackings last year, but piracy in the poverty-stricken west-African nation are still making headlines. Somali pirates have recently shifted tactics to kidnapping people on land , such as travel and surfing journalist Michael Scott Moore, who was kidnapped in northern Somalia last month . However, the tactic may be ill-advised. At about the same time as Moore’s capture, Navy SEAL team 6, the same squad responsible for the Osama Bin Laden’s death , rescued an American woman and Dutch man during a raid that resulted in deaths of eight of their captors. Still, employees working on oil tankers and cargo ships remain at substantial risk, so much so that employers pay an additoinal $195 million each year to compensate them for taking on the danger. Shipping industry workers also endure a variety of other dangers on the job. In addition to the risk of running aground — a danger that the workers on the New Zealand cargo ship Rena know all too well — workers also face the possibility of exploding shipping containers.

Read the full article →

Many With Only High School Degree Laid Off During Weak Recovery

February 7, 2012

For many in the United States, the two years since the end of the recession have been worse than the downturn itself. Among those Americans with only a high school degree who have lost a job since 2007, a third became unemployed after the official end of the recession, according to The Washington Post . It’s a troubling statistic in its own right — job seekers without a college degree are having serious difficulty finding work in the current market, and the unemployment rate for high school graduates is more than twice that of college grads — but it also underscores the fact that, for many Americans, the recovery hasn’t felt very different from the recession that preceded it. Economists consider the Great Recession to have ended in the summer of 2009, nearly three years ago. That’s the point when the economy stopped outright shrinking and began growing again . But the subsequent period of modest expansion has been marked by job cuts, uncertainty and a gradual erosion of financial security for many Americans. These conditions are expected to remain pronounced for a long time to come. U.S. employers cut 529,973 jobs in 2010 , according to the outplacement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas. In 2011, that number rose to 606,082 . At the same time, wages and benefits barely grew , with the high jobless rate giving employers little incentive to pay workers more. Today, there are still nearly 13 million Americans looking for work. It’s not that life has gotten much better for those with a job either. All together, median household incomes have now fallen more in the recovery than they did during the recession. Meanwhile, as many as 49 million Americans live in poverty — a record high — and almost half the households in the country lack the kind of savings necessary to weather a financial emergency. People without a college degree are having a particularly difficult time finding work , but they’re not the only demographic hard hit by the crisis. The unemployment rate among very recent college graduates is well above the national average . While Baby Boomers account for a huge percentage of the long-term unemployed . And African-Americans have a jobless rate of 13.6 percent — more than five percentage points above the national level.

Read the full article →

Boehner: Obama Super PAC Decision ‘Just Another Broken Promise’

February 7, 2012

Hours after President Barack Obama’s campaign decided to soften its stance toward super PACs, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) slammed the decision. At a Tuesday news conference, Boehner was asked for his comment regarding the president’s reversal. “Just another broken promise,” he said. On Monday evening, Obama’s re-election team announced its backing of Priorities USA , a super PAC run by former Obama aides. Obama has traditionally been a fervent opponent toward the organizations , dating back to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision that spearheaded their creation. Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina explained the decision, alluding to the millions of dollars spent by organizations supporting GOP presidential candidates. Via Obama 2012′s official website : With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission. In a Tuesday morning conference call , more details emerged about the change of political heart. Outside of millions of dollars flooding into GOP super PACs, another factor was the $500 million fundraising goal set by Crossroads groups and the Koch Brothers. While Boehner was critical of Obama’s decision, he’s historically been against limitations on campaign fundraising. After the Supreme Court rolled back campaign finance restrictions in the landmark Citizens United case, Boehner called the decision “a big win for the First Amendment.” “Let the American people decide how much money is enough,” Boehner said, according to NPR. A few months later, when Democrats turned to the DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency among private groups investing in elections, Boehner expressed his opposition . “Freedom of speech is the basis of our democracy,” he said in a press release on the day that the House passed the bill . “The purpose of this bill, plain and simple, is to allow Democrats to use their Majority in this House to silence their political opponents. This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.” The DISCLOSE Act fell by one vote in the Senate , which then-White House senior adviser and current Obama political adviser David Axelrod called a “significant” blow. From the Democratic side of the aisle, Monday’s Obama decision did not sit well with former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). A heavy proponent of campaign finance laws, Feingold opposed the campaign’s support of super PACs, telling The Huffington Post that “it is a dumb approach.” Feingold proceeded to question how the move affects Democrats across the board. “I also think it guts the president’s message and the Democratic Party’s message,” Feingold said. “We are doing very well right now. The president is doing brilliantly. This is no time to blunt that message by starting to play this game.”

Read the full article →

Twitter, Facebook Are Least Used Sources Of Political News

February 7, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — In this campaign season, the social networks have nothing on the news networks. A new survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds cable news most frequently cited as a regular source of political campaign news, followed by local TV news, network news, the Internet and finally local newspapers. Twitter, YouTube and Facebook were at the bottom of the list. But with only Republicans choosing a presidential nominee this time around, fewer people are interested in following campaign news in any medium. This year’s poll marks the first time that cable news topped the list of campaign news sources, with 36 percent of those surveyed reporting that they regularly learn something about the campaign or the candidates from pay TV news. Cable has not gained as a source since early in the 2008 cycle, when 38 percent identified it as a top source. But the share who said they regularly get news from other TV sources or newspapers has declined. Asked where they get most of their campaign news, 74 percent cited television, in keeping with findings over the past few election cycles. Thirty-six percent said the Internet is their main source, up 10 points from this point in 2008, and newspapers provided most of the news for 23 percent, down 7 points. Use of the Internet as a regular campaign news source has held steady at 25 percent, on par with the 24 percent who regularly turned to the web in 2008. Pew attributes the lack of growth to declining interest in campaign news overall, particularly among younger adults, the primary users of online news. In January 2008, 34 percent of adults said they followed election news very closely. But that dipped to 29 percent this year, with the steepest declines among those under age 30 and Democrats. The 2008 campaign saw a relatively slim, 8-point difference in strong election interest by age. This year, however, senior citizens are twice as likely as those aged 18-29 to say they are following campaign news very closely. Among older age groups, the share saying they turn to the Internet regularly for campaign news has held steady or climbed, but among those under age 30, that figure has dropped sharply, from 42 percent in December 2007 to 29 percent now. A majority of those surveyed said they use social networking sites like Facebook, but most do not use them for news. Just 6 percent regularly turn to Facebook for campaign updates, and 2 percent go on Twitter. But the low standing of social networking sites doesn’t mean they aren’t a news source with potential for broader appeal. In early 2000, just 6 percent of survey recipients said they got most of their campaign news from the Internet. That grew to 13 percent by the start of the 2004 campaign and has nearly tripled, to 36 percent, in the eight years since. Among current Twitter users, 41 percent said they turn to the site at least sometimes for news, among users of other social networking sites, 36 percent sometimes or regularly use Facebook for news. Those using online news sources this cycle are most likely to turn to traditional news sites, such as CNN and Yahoo News, and aggregators, such as Google, over the candidates’ websites or social networking sites. CNN (24 percent) and Yahoo News (22 percent) top the list of online sources, followed by Google (13 percent), Fox News (10 percent), MSN (9 percent) and MSNBC (8 percent). All other sites were named by 5 percent or less, including Facebook, Twitter, the Drudge Report and Huffington Post. Interaction with a candidate’s online campaign is generally not seen as a key source of information. Just 2 percent who use the Internet for campaign information say they turn to candidate websites for news, but many more have had online contact with a candidate. Among registered voters, 15 percent say they have visited a candidate’s website and 16 percent have received email from campaign or political groups. Six percent say they have followed a candidate on Twitter or Facebook, rising to 12 percent among those under age 30. But whether online, on TV or in print, few Americans find it fun to keep up with politics. Overall, just 23 percent said they deeply enjoy following campaign news. The number dips to 17 percent among political independents, and to 13 percent of those under age 30. The Pew Center’s campaign news survey was conducted Jan. 4-8 and included interviews with a random national sample of 1,507 adults contacted by landline and cellular telephone. Results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. ___ Online: Pew Research Center: http://www.people-press.org

Read the full article →

Coca Cola Benefits From Price Hike

February 7, 2012

NEW YORK — Coca-Cola reported an effervescent fourth quarter Tuesday, as the company sold more of its drinks globally and its earnings beat analyst expectations. Coca-Cola is benefiting from raising prices in North America, where consumer sentiment is slowly improving, and expanding in emerging markets including Africa and Latin America. “Compared to 12 months ago, there are very early indications that the consumer (in North America) is feeling a little better, with more mobility, travel and eating out,” said CEO Muhtar Kent in a telephone interview with the AP. “That all translates into better business for us.” Coca-Cola Co.’s fourth-quarter net income dropped 71 percent, weighed down by restructuring charges and a difficult comparison with last year’s fourth quarter, when the beverage maker had a hefty benefit from buying its bottlers. But the Atlanta company said Tuesday its adjusted results topped Wall Street’s expectations as it sold more drinks in the U.S. and abroad, particularly in emerging markets. “Even as we believe that global market volatility will continue in the near term, the breadth of our global footprint and the strength of our brands create a resilient business that was built for times like these,” CEO Muhtar Kent said in a statement. Shares of Coca-Cola rose 91 cents to $68.94 in midday trading. Coke also said it will start a cost-cutting program in 2012 to save $550 million to $650 million annually by 2015 in part to help offset continued high commodity costs. Coca-Cola, whose brands include Sprite and Minute Maid, earned $1.65 billion, or 72 cents per share, for the period ended Dec. 31. That’s down sharply from $5.77 billion, or $2.46 per share, a year earlier. But a year ago, the company had a one-time net gain of $1.74 per share, mainly related to buying a bottler’s North American operations. Removing restructuring charges and other items, earnings were 79 cents per share. Analysts forecast 77 cents for the company, according to Fact Set. Revenue increased 5 percent to $11.04 billion. It was helped by higher prices, strength overseas and solid results from the Coca-Cola brand, juices and teas. The figure just topped Wall Street’s $11 billion estimate. Coca-Cola sold 3 percent more of its drinks during the quarter, including a 1 percent gain in Europe and North America and a 4 percent gain in Eurasia and Africa and Latin America. Coca-Cola, which has more than 500 brands including Fanta, Sprite, Dasani and Minute Maid, has weathered the downturn by spending more on advertising, new products and plants. The company, like many, also has turned overseas for growth, particularly emerging markets like India and China. And in North America, it is raising prices and offering smaller package sizes. For the year, net income fell 27 percent to $8.57 billion, or $3.69 per share. That compares with $11.81 billion or $5.06 per share last year. Revenue rose 33 percent to $46.54 billion from $35.12 billion. Global volume grew 5 percent during the year, helped by strength in emerging markets such as Latin America. Coke’s chief rival, Pepsico Inc., reports results Thursday.

Read the full article →

Chrome For Android Finally Here … Sort Of

February 7, 2012

Google has released a long-awaited beta version of its Chrome web browser for Android-powered phones and tablets, but the software only works on devices running the latest version of Android. The test version of Google’s popular Internet browser was made available for download today in the Android Market . Notable features of the software include the capacity for tabbed browsing, the option to browse the web in “incognito mode,” accelerated page loading, and the ability to sync bookmarks and passwords between users’ other devices on which they use the Chrome browser. Unfortunately, the acceleration technology these features require means the browser is limited to the few Android mobile devices that currently use Ice Cream Sandwich, the latest version of the Android operating system. Those devices include the Galaxy Nexus, Nexus S and Asus Transformer Prime, Business Insider reports . But experts expect Google Chrome to dominate Android devices in the future as users upgrade their phones to ones capable of running the newest Android operating system. “Even in beta, it’s a compelling browser at least on the Galaxy Nexus I tried it on, and it’s and a much better match for Apple’s Safari on iOS,” Stephen Shankland wrote in a review of the software for CNET . “And eventually, its success is all but assured when it simply becomes what ships with Android.” Today’s beta release caps off a three-year effort on the part of Google engineers to converge Android and Chrome , the company’s two fastest growing products, according to Mercury News . Both products were launched at the end of 2008 and soon became favorites of many users and developers. Android is currently the world’s most popular mobile operating system, while Chrome recently shot past Mozilla Firefox to become the second most popular Web browser behind Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Early feedback from users reviewing the software on Android Market has been largely positive, with the first 500 commenters giving the software an average rating of 4.3 stars out of five. Check out a slideshow of screenshots below: WATCH:

Read the full article →

Google Fiber Rollout Ready To Begin

February 7, 2012

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

Read the full article →

Endeavour Press: Even in a Bear Market, You Can Still Get Rich

February 7, 2012

By John Carlucci, author of Ashes to Riches: How to Profit Spectacularly During the Economic Collapse of 2012 to 2022 . In 2008, the financial world was hit by its own version of the meteorite that killed off the dinosaurs. Huge investment banks disappeared into thin air, the stock market went into a terrifying plunge and shell-shocked politicians warned that the world economy was within days of imminent collapse. Millions of ordinary investors saw their world turned upside down as years of planning and saving, years of accumulated wealth were suddenly vaporized. But catastrophe clears the field for new opportunities and whoever can adapt to the new world thrives. To be a successful investor in our post-meteorite world, you need to embrace several key ideas. First, realize that much of what you are told by financial “experts” is deliberately incomplete and blatantly self-serving. The truth is, their primary interest is looking out for their income stream, not you. They make money kneading and rolling “Assets Under Management” – your dough. If your account does well, they make money on service fees. And if your account crashes, as in 2008, they’ll beg and plead that you stay in the market because they still collect fees servicing the little you have left. What they don’t make money on is you selling all your stocks and going to cash or other safe haven. With that unsettling thought in mind, their conventional “Buy and Hold” strategy has not just become obsolete, but absolutely lethal. That’s because in 2000, the market fundamentally transformed from a long term or “secular” bull to a secular bear. The steady upward trend in the market, averaging 18.6% per year from 1982 to 1999, suddenly flat-lined. Since 2000, the S&P has averaged a paltry 0.46% gain per year and there are strong indications we’re in for a downward trend that won’t be over for at least another decade. Not surprisingly, most financial “advisers” are still recommending the long term “Buy and Hold” zombie strategy because it guarantees their income as long as you stay invested. But to survive and thrive in a multi-decade-long bear market you must zero in on the short term ups and downs that last for only a few years at most. What are referred to as the “cyclical” bull and bear swings — within the larger long term secular bear period. Instead of buying and holding for decades on end, you buy at the bottom of a cyclical swing and sell at the top. It’s the only strategy with any hope of getting you through this secular bear intact. It isn’t good for your broker’s income, but you have to put your own interest first — just like he does. Likewise, learn how to protect yourself. No sane person would get onto an elevator that didn’t have an emergency brake. Likewise, no rational person should invest a dollar without attaching a “stop loss” order to it. What’s a “stop loss”? It’s a standing order that protects your investments just like an elevator emergency brake. If your stock price drops to a pre-determined level, either a percentage drop or a dollar amount drop that you choose in advance, the stop loss order automatically executes, selling your stock at the exact price you ordered or as close to it as possible. Your broker never told you about stop loss orders? You’re not alone. From the market peak in 2007 until it hit bottom in March 2009, investors lost approximately $11 trillion in asset value. The entire GDP of the United States in 2008 was $13 trillion. This occurred because very few average investors were protected by stop loss orders. They followed their financial advisers’ advice to hold and rode the catastrophe all the way to rock bottom. It was like holding tight to the walls of the elevator as it fell through space. It’s likely to get pretty rough over the next few years but if you keep these few simple ideas in mind at least you won’t be as surprised as you would have been, and as millions of others are going to be. In fact, there’s even a very good chance you’ll thrive in our brave new financial world. Ashes to Riches: How to Profit Spectacularly during the Economic Collapse of 2012 to 2022 , by John F. Carlucci, is published by Endeavour Press Ltd.

Read the full article →

Qutenza, Chili Pepper Drug, Gets Mixed Review For Treating HIV-Related Pain

February 7, 2012

* FDA raises concerns of effectiveness of pain patch * NeurogesX seeks Qutenza approval for pain in HIV patients * US FDA panel to review proposed new use on Thursday * Shares fall 23 percent (Recasts first sentence with stock fall, adds details on approval process) WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) – NeurogesX Inc’s pain treatment derived from chili peppers had only mixed success at treating pain in HIV patients, U.S. health regulators said on Tuesday, sending shares of the tiny company down 23 percent. NeurogesX won FDA approval in 2009 for its Qutenza patch as a treatment for pain related to shingles. The product’s active ingredient is a synthetic form of the agent that makes chili peppers hot, known as capsaicin. The company now hopes to get the nod to sell the product for peripheral neuropathic pain that afflicts as many as 40 percent of HIV sufferers. An FDA committee of outside experts will meet to discuss Qutenza’s use among HIV patients on Thursday. The FDA is expected to make a decision by March 7. On Tuesday, Food and Drug Administration reviewers said in a report that the Qutenza patch produced statistically significant pain reduction among people with HIV. But that success was due to a 90-minute application. FDA staff said company studies failed to demonstrate the efficacy of the 30-minute treatment the company proposed for use in treating HIV-related pain. Statistical concerns including a lack of evidence that the results can be repeated “have raised the question of whether evidence of substantial efficacy has been demonstrated for this proposed treatment regimen,” said Dr. Bob Rappaport, director of the FDA’s Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Addition Products. FDA staff said studies with HIV patients showed no new safety issues. European Union regulators have already approved Qutenza for controlling pain in nondiabetic adults including people with HIV. Shares in the San Mateo, California-based biopharmaceutical company were down more than 23 percent at 89 cents on Tuesday morning on the Nasdaq. The exchange has threatened to delist the stock unless it can be sustained at $1 a share or above between now and July 28. (Reporting By David Morgan; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Derek Caney and Matthew Lewis)

Read the full article →

Ben Bernanke: Long-Term Unemployment Crisis Altering Job Market For The Worse

February 7, 2012

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that record levels of long-term unemployment will alter the U.S. job market for the worse for the foreseeable future. Bernanke said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the natural rate of unemployment — or the level of unemployment that results when the economy is supporting as many jobs as it can — has risen from about four percent in the early 2000s to more than five percent because so many Americans have been out of work for so long. In the process, they have lost skills and have become less likely to return to work. “We are concerned that over the past few years that there has been some modest increase in the sustainable long-run rate of unemployment,” Bernanke said. “I hope Congress will consider ways to address that problem.” Though the unemployment rate fell to 8.3 percent in January, many Americans have stopped looking for work and have therefore been pushed out of the workforce, perhaps permanently. The labor force participation rate fell in January to 63.7 percent — its lowest level since January 1982. More than 40 percent of those currently unemployed have been without work for more than six months, Bernanke noted. That’s roughly double the share during the housing boom of the early and mid-2000s, he said. That adds up to 5.5 million Americans who have been out of work for six months or more, not to mention three to five million more people who have dropped out of the labor force because they have given up looking for work. Bernanke said that the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee estimates that the natural rate of unemployment is now between 5.2 and 6.0 percent. The actual unemployment rate in 2006 was just 4.6 percent, and in 2000 it was even lower at 4.0 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The long-term unemployed are in more danger of experiencing years of unemployment because it becomes steadily harder for a job-seeker to find work the longer they’re unemployed. Many employers ask for their applicants to be currently employed , a stipulation President Barack Obama is trying to make illegal. Firms also are less prone to hire the long-term unemployed because of the perception that their skills and professional networks deteriorate while they are out of work. Bernanke has previously warned about the prolonged economic harm of long-term unemployment. In September the Fed chairman called long-term unemployment a “national crisis.” “This has never happened in the post-war period in the United States,” Bernanke said in September. “They are losing the skills they had, they are losing their connections, their attachment to the labor force.” Bernanke said on Tuesday that the Federal Reserve can do only so much to bring down unemployment. “We’re only saying that monetary policy really can’t do much to bring unemployment in a sustainable way below those levels,” Bernanke said of the natural rate. Bernanke said that in order to bring down the natural rate of unemployment further, the U.S. government needs to focus on projects that provide the country long-run value, especially those focusing on education, worker skills, and research and development. “We don’t want to build useless monuments,” Bernanke said. With many more people no longer considered part of the workforce, Bernanke said that January’s 8.3 percent unemployment rate “no doubt understates the weakness of the labor market in a broader sense.”

Read the full article →

Businesses Accuse Cybersecurity Plan Of Overstepping Bounds

February 7, 2012

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

Read the full article →

As Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado Vote, Republicans Talk Cuts Not Investment

February 6, 2012

Most politicians would brush aside their mother if it meant scoring a photo-op with a Minnesota businessman like John Van Dine. His 22-year-old company, SAGE Electrochromics, is in the middle of a $150 million expansion to double its workforce to total 250, all in Fairbault, Minn., and pulling in a decent wage. SAGE, which makes glass plates with electronic sensors that turn lighter or darker depending on the time of day, is even exporting to Asia and the Middle East. But Van Dine isn’t look to share the stage with any politician; he’s just hoping for more government investment in infrastructure, education and health care, all needed for a sustained economic recovery, he said. But as voters head to the caucuses and primaries on Tuesday in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, those aren’t the kinds of initiatives making headlines. Instead, the leading Republican candidates are hammering home the idea that cuts to government spending and fewer regulations are key to an economic rebound. “It’s not that they are not aware of the problems; it is that they haven’t provided the leadership,” said Van Dine, adding that politicians in both parties are to blame for not having the courage to propose investing on a large scale to fuel economic growth. Minnesota is in better shape than most of the rest of the country, including Colorado and Missouri. Unemployment is relatively low, at 5.7 percent. The state’s manufacturing sector has seen 16 straight months of growth, according to the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth in Minnesota is slow, just 1 percent in 2011 — slightly higher than the national average. The state’s manufacturers employ fewer workers than before the recession, and these types of jobs are unlikely to be fully restored to pre-2008 levels, said Troy Walters, an economist at IHS Global Insight. In addition, Minnesota is experiencing cutbacks in government spending. There were 1.4 percent fewer government workers in this state by the end of 2011, compared with the tally at the end of 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local government layoffs have hurt economic growth in the state, said Thomas Stinson, an applied economics professor at the University of Minnesota and an economist for the state. When workers in the public or private sector are laid off, they spend less, which then reduces employers’ demand for workers — hurting consumer demand even more, Stinson said. “It really starts a vicious circle.” Missouri and Colorado also lost government jobs last year, and Republican presidential candidates have made government job cuts part of their platforms. Romney wrote in his economic plan that if elected, he would slice the size of the federal workforce 10 percent and cap federal spending at just 20 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, which would mean trimming federal spending about 17 percent. Romney and Gingrich have both said they would slash regulations, corporate taxes and government spending as a means of addressing America’s economic woes. The campaigns did not immediately return requests for comment. The other Tuesday primary states would love to be in Minnesota’s position. The total number of jobs in Missouri declined 0.1 percent in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And among all states, Missouri is the 15th most pessimistic about the economy, according to Gallup. Colorado’s economy is doing better than Missouri’s, but it is still not healthy. Many of its job gains last year came within the leisure and hospitality sectors, where positions tend to be low paying. Manufacturing in Missouri and Colorado is starting to rebound, however. Last year manufacturing in Missouri grew the most quickly of any sector — attaining a 3.1 percent job growth rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In Colorado, jobs manufacturing, comprising less than 6 percent of its total, grew 0.7 percent last year. Despite of Minnesota’s improving economic situation, Minnesotans are still very concerned about jobs and the economy, Stinson said. “If you haven’t got a job, if you’re worried about your job, the national debt is not what you’re concerned about,” he said. While Republican candidates have mainly proposed cutting government spending and regulation, at a New Hampshire debate in January Gingrich mentioned that the United States should focus on developing its technological infrastructure. “You cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. You’ve got to move to a 21st-century model. That means you’ve got to be technologically smart, and you have to make investments,” he said , according to the Daily Caller . For his part, President Barack Obama said during his Jan. 24 State of the Union address that he would like to cut taxes for high-tech manufacturing companies that hire in the United States while establishing a minimum corporate tax rate. But economists and labor leaders say rebuilding the economy takes more than incentives; it will require new investment. Damon Silvers, policy director at the AFL-CIO, estimated in January that the economy needs a $4 trillion public investment program over 10 years — with spending focused on education and infrastructure — to make the economy competitive enough to support the middle class.

Read the full article →

Sarah O’Leary: The Race for the Exits: How Komen Can Stop the Exodus

February 6, 2012

Drastic action is imperative if Race for the Cure hopes to stave off a catastrophic implosion. Now that Susan G. Komen has reversed its decision to stop funding breast cancer screenings for Planned Parenthood, it must take drastic, meaningful and very public measures to win back the hearts and minds of supports, consumers and corporate sponsors. One “mea culpa” apology will not be enough to shore up sponsors or win back consumers’ loyalty. As anyone working for Komen can attest, surviving a traumatic event doesn’t mean you’re healed. It’s an even odds bet that Komen, will remain highly toxic to promotional partners and their target audiences for months and years to come if it doesn’t make substantive change and voice it to the public immediately. When using borrowed equity to sell products or services, marketers seek out the best fit for their brand and their consumers. Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure was the Cinderella story of all charitable efforts, arguably the most popular nonprofit in history. Yoplait, General Mills, American Airlines, Evian and a host of other big players partnered with Komen to lift their brands among a coveted audience, Shopper Moms. Those of us marketers around at the beginning remember the truly groundbreaking arrival of Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. Komen, singlehandedly, changed how marketers felt about what was, historically, a verboten subject. Before Susan G. Komen, the vast majority of marketers thought pairing cancer with their products or services was brand suicide. Marketing agencies bold enough to suggest Komen tie-ins heard in more than one corporate conference room, “You want us to do WHAT? Tie candy in with BREAST CANCER? It’ll ruin our BRAND!” Then came Race for the Cure. Pink ribbons began to show up everywhere, on everything. And Shopper Moms LOVED it. They were buying up Komen related products in droves, and corporate sponsors reaped the rich rewards. Shopper Moms were passionate in their support of women’s health, and their actions taught many in marketing a crucial lesson. An association with Breast Cancer and Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure didn’t harm a brand, it could skyrocket it. Sadly, today is a completely different day for Komen. Marketers need to be beyond certain that the pink ribbon and Susan G. Komen logo will make shoppers want to buy a box of corn flakes rather than avoid or (marketing gods forbid) intentionally boycott it. With all of passion on both sides of the issue, Komen has a long, uncharted and potentially perilous road ahead of it. If you’re a member of Yoplait’s marketing department, for example, the logical step would be to sever the relationship with Susan G. Komen as it exists today in support of another worthy breast cancer charity. As a multi-million dollar brand trying to sell more yogurt, Yoplait simply can’t risk shopper backlash. Susan G. Komen cannot, unfortunately, turn back the hands of time and erase their grievous error in judgment. However, doing nothing past issuing an apology will permanently damage what almost three decades of painstaking efforts have established. Komen must shore up marketing and consumer support by ridding itself of those whose thinking got Komen into this mess in the first place. The current board, President, CEO, CMO and Director of Public Policy should resign, effectively immediately. By eliminating the leaders who approved the Planned Parenthood grant debacle, it will send a loud and clear message that the Komen women knew, loved and trusted is back in business. When outraged consumers no longer fault Komen for its incompetency, supporters will return and partnerships with Komen will be viable for corporate sponsors. If Komen continues with the old guard that got them in the mess in the first place, consumers and marketers will have no assurances that such an error in judgment won’t happen again. In addition to replacing the leadership at Komen, the organization should consider inviting a respected voice from the breast cancer-screening arena at Planned Parenthood to sit on the Race for the Cure board. Also, Komen would be smart to partner with the breast cancer screening area of Planned Parenthood on a share promotional effort. The two could execute a cooperative campaign with one of Komen’s corporate sponsors. “Support Breast Cancer Screenings for Women in Need,” benefiting Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening initiatives, would help a) put the focus back where it belongs — on breast cancer and women’s health and b) show consumers and marketers that Komen is serious about change that’s devoid of politics. Even if Susan G. Komen implemented the suggestions herein, there would still be a massive amount of repair that must take place. Consumers’ loyalty is a fascinating in regard to its potential benefits and liabilities. If you meet consumers’ wants, needs and desires, they will stay true. If you forget who your audience is, even for a couple of days, it can take a brand like Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure generations to recover. The mission of Komen is simply too important to women to wait that long. Sarah O’Leary is a 25-year marketing veteran and author of Brandwashed: Why the Shopper Matters More Than What You’re Selling”.

Read the full article →

K. Sudhir: Firing Customers to Flatten the Whale

February 6, 2012

It’s called the whale curve — a schematic representation of profit, replicated below. It illustrates, among other things, how 200 percent of profit can come from only 10 percent of customers. Fifty percent of customers might account for 250 percent of profit. And the bottom half of customers can actually bleed the profits of the firm. Innovation in accounting, called activity based costing of individual customers, has led to this important insight. What should a manager do with this insight? The more a firm can flatten this hump, the more it will profit from customers who do not bleed the firm. So the question stands: when should a firm fire a customer? An undeniably strange question, but certain types of customers can prove costly enough that the relationship is worth terminating, as Sprint somewhat infamously demonstrated in 2007. For example, A Netflix customer with a 7.99 plan who turns around as many as 10 DVDs per month; A bank customer who insists on visiting the bank multiple times a month and never uses ATMs or online services; A retail customer who buys numerous items with the intent to return most of them; A business customer who exploits free delivery to order small quantities and minimize inventory costs. There are a variety of solutions available in each case above. Netflix, for example, could slow down its shipment rate; or banks could spend time educating customers about online resources. Generally, firms might raise prices to account for the increased cost of specific customers. But the essential riddle remains whether or not these actions make sense for profitability. To examine these tradeoffs, I worked with my colleagues at the Yale Center for Customer Insights , Jiwoong Shin and Dae-Hee Yoon, to develop an economic model based on game theory that clarified the relationships between a firm and its customers and aided understanding of how to improve profitability by flattening the whale curve. We discovered first that most business-to-consumer markets, like direct marketing and online retail, are structured such that every customer tends to be profitable. There is no need to fire any customers because a firm does not spend differentially to serve them; there are essentially no unprofitably high-maintenance shoppers, except those that have a chronic habit of returning items after trying them out. Zappos is famous for the ease with which it facilitates returns, but can be successful only if most of its customers don’t make a habit of it. But in many business-to-business markets, as well as those business-to-consumer markets that demonstrate differential customer costs (as in the examples above), it makes sense to selectively raise prices for high-cost customers, offer lower prices for low-cost customers, and fire the customers who cost more than they expend. Interestingly, firms can even benefit from selectively firing profitable customers if the cost to serve them is also high. A common fear of winnowing the customer base is that the average cost will rise for the remaining customers because much of the cost of doing business (e.g., the staff, the office, etc.) remains fixed over the short-term. We find that this is an unfounded fear. Rather, as long as new and profitable customers come in to replace the old, firms will not only be able to cover the cost of doing business, but find it more profitable. Our modeling approach shows the usefulness of looking at the whale curve from a dynamic perspective, though traditionally accountants look at this model in static terms. Common practice often strives to expand a consumer base, with the intuitive understanding that more customers equal more profit. Unfortunately, intuitive in this case is not also accurate, and selective customer management can flatten the whale curve over time and increase overall profitability. Not bad when things are lean. It might just be time to hand out a few pink hued receipts.

Read the full article →

You’ve Got… Personal Branding

February 6, 2012

TV Host and business guru Donny Deutsch discusses how individuals brand themselves in the digital age.

Read the full article →

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

February 6, 2012

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

Read the full article →

BofA Investor Lawsuit Wins Class-Action Status

February 6, 2012

Feb 6 (Reuters) – Shareholders suing Bank of America Corp on Monday won class-action status for their lawsuit accusing the bank and various executives and directors of fraudulently misleading them about the 2008 takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co and size of Merrill’s losses and bonus payouts. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in Manhattan on Monday rejected Bank of America’s effort to deny certification, after the lender claimed that investors could not prove they suffered losses after relying on materially misleading statements or omissions. Bank of America had no immediate comment. Investors had faulted Bank of America for not timely disclosing the scope of Merrill’s soaring losses, which reached $15.84 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, and for letting Merrill pay $3.6 billion of bonuses at the time. The case covers a variety of investors who owned Bank of America stock or call options between September 2008 and January 2009. Class certification lets plaintiffs pursue their case as a group, which can cut costs, and can lead to larger recoveries than if plaintiffs were to sue individually.

Read the full article →

Art Brodsky: The Jack Nicholson Answer to Hollywood Moguls on SOPA and PIPA: ‘You Can’t Handle the Truth’

February 6, 2012

Earlier today (Feb. 6), a most extraordinary group of people sent a letter to Capitol Hill, in the latest round of the fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), telling Congress it was time to reject the well-worn lobbying of the big media companies. More than 70 grassroots activist organizations and emerging Internet companies got up the nerve to show Congress that it was time to stop fooling around with bills that helped to generate the largest online protest in recent memory.  More than 100,000 Web sites participated in the Jan. 18 blackout day.  Tens of thousands of people called and visited their Congressional representatives, all with one message: These bills are dangerous, and shouldn’t be allowed to proceed. The letter, coordinated by Public Knowledge, said, “Now is the time for Congress to take a breath, step back, and approach the issues from a fresh perspective.”   The message that there were, and are, fundamental concerns coming from a wide and comprehensive communities is one that doesn’t come across in comments that big executives have made lately. It’s a shame that Hollywood moguldom didn’t get that message and instead is still playing make believe.  Lawmakers should realize that their constituency in Hollywood is lacking a grasp of reality and missing the mark by a mile. One hand, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman was quoted by deadline.com as saying at a conference that Hollywood didn’t lose the SOPA/PIPA fight on the merits of their case.  It was, instead, because there was “a lot of misinformation” from Silicon Valley.  He blamed the ” mob mentality ” and “unfortunate rhetoric” for the bills’ troubles. Speaking at the same All Things D conference, Chase Carey, the number-two exec at Fox, said it was “the message getting twisted” by that nasty Interweb that caused the bills to go down.  Carey admitted he hadn’t read the bills, but rejected working with Silicon Valley on a solution.  That’s fine.  It really isn’t Silicon Valley’s place to work out a solution with Hollywood anyway. It boggles the mind that Hollywood, which exists to tell stories, thinks it has let its story get away.  Let’s define the issue in a way Hollywood would understand, with this adaptation and then quotation from A Few Good Men : Int.  THE COURTROOM We are in a courtroom, in a tense moment of a trial.  It’s a court-martial, and the participants are all in the military.  At the prosecution table is Navy LIEUTENANT JUNIOR GRADE DANIEL ALLISTAIR KAFFEE (Tom Cruise in the movie), who has been performing unevenly throughout the trial, but now is gaining confidence.  He’s questioning COLONEL NATHAN R. JESSEP (Jack Nicholson), a decorated Marine commander who looks down on KAFFEE as if he’s an inferior life form.  Back and forth they go, with KAFFEE asking and JESSEP grudgingly answering, until this, from the movie (as opposed to the play from which the movie was taken):   JESSEP   You want answers?   KAFFEE   I think I’m entitled to them.   JESSEP   You want answers?!  KAFFEE I want the truth.   JESSEP   You can’t handle the truth! That’s it in a nutshell, isn’t it?  Hollywood can’t handle the truth about SOPA and PIPA. First , they can’t handle that there were dangerous elements to the bills.  That was why so many people, the very people Congress left out of the discussion, were moved to get involved.  The bills were much more complex than “cracking down on overseas pirates,” and yet those pushing the bills either disregarded or didn’t recognize the threats to a free Internet.  Certainly their testimony before Congress didn’t give any indication that they did either.  When anyone brought up their objections, Hollywood executives and their legislative allies dismissed them.  Who cared what cybersecurity analysts, law professors, artists, human rights groups, public-interest organizations and others had to say?  Eventually the sponsors caved on the security issue, but only after a long-standing dispute. Unlike the moguls, the activist letter recognized: “A wide variety of important concerns have been expressed — including views from technologists, law professors, international human rights groups, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and above all, individual Internet users. The concerns are too fundamental and too numerous to be fully addressed through hasty revisions to these bills. Nor can they be addressed by closed door negotiations among a small set of inside-the-beltway stakeholders.”   Second , the executives didn’t recognize that the protest against the bills was not a product of classic special-interest lobbying.  It was not Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley.  As this article in PC World (and other publications) showed, Google did not create the protest against the intellectual property bills.  Rather a network of groups with substantive concerns worked with organizations from around the country, which, once informed of the dangers of the bills, spread the word to their members, and constituent organizations. Third , there really is some question about what “the truth” is in these cases.  The only numbers for “harm” come from the industry and haven’t been duplicated by anyone.  It’s time to find out what the “harm” really is. That time-out is necessary to “determine the true extent of online infringement and, as importantly, the economic effects of that activity, from accurate and unbiased sources, and weigh them against the economic and social costs of new copyright legislation. Congress cannot simply accept industry estimates regarding economic and job implications of infringement given the Government Accountability Office’s clear finding in 2010 that previous statistics and quantitative studies on the subject have been unreliable.” This is too important to hand over law making to one industry, as Congress did in the case of these bills.  Too much is at stake to try to rework the bills in a slapdash manner, behind closed doors.  That’s the truth.

Read the full article →

Former Bank Of America Employee Picks New Fight With Banking Giant

February 6, 2012

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

Read the full article →

John Fox: 1 Stat Picks Super Bowl Winner… and Business Success?

February 6, 2012

Just like the previous 45 games, the winner of this year’s Super Bowl came down to one stat. Turnovers. According to Stats, LLC, the team that wins the turnover battle wins the game. Not the team to win the coin toss (that’s true only 49 percent of the time), scoring first (66 percent) or even the team that leads after the 3 rd quarter (84 percent). Rather, the team that hangs onto the ball ultimately is the victor. Winning the turnover battle is even a better stat to watch than the more sexy “average more yards per pass play” stat (78 percent). The odds that a team will win the Super Bowl when the following events occur, based on the previous 45 years of Super Bowl history: Event Odds of Winning Win the coin toss 49% (22 of 45) Score first 64% (29 of 45) Gain the first play of 25-plus yards 58% (26 of 45) Lead after the first quarter 68% (23 of 34) Lead after the second quarter 79% (34 of 43) Lead after the third quarter 84% (37 of 44) Lead midway through the fourth quarter 95% (40 of 42) Average more yards per pass play 78% (35 of 45) Win the turnover battle 92% (33 of 36) Source: Stats LLC and WSJ.com Sure, this year’s battle had only one turnover (an interception), but there could have been two turnovers had not NY been called for a penalty for having 12 men on the field (and who knows what the score would have then been). Do Turnovers Predict Business Success? I started my sales career with Intel — back in the go-go days of the late ’70s. Intel was not the chip leader it is today. While we were dwarfed by Texas Instruments, Motorola and many others, Intel sales management was maniacally focused on customer wins. When we won a new account, the Customer Win was celebrated. As a sales guy, it was a nice notch in your belt, especially when it was recognized with a Telex from the sales vice president, Hank O’Hara, or a handwritten note from a regional manager like Frank Gill. But the bigger prize was a Customer Win earned by taking away an account from a competitor. It didn’t even matter how big the account was or if the customer had some marquee value. Nope. Stealing an account created heroes. Same, too, for battling it out with a competitor for a current account. Nothing seemed to get management worked up into a lather like the prospect of losing an existing customer. Even a young field sales rep like me was given full license to call upon anyone in management to fly in for a customer presentation. It was just part of Intel’s DNA to never ever lose an account and to pull out all the stops to win a new account. Turnovers in Your Business? Since I left Intel several years ago I’ve had the opportunity to work with hundreds of small businesses with revenues under $50 million. Some are rising stars. Unfortunately, though, most have flat-lined — having reached a steady-state of customer wins vs. customer losses. With eerie predictability, the “Turnover Stat” holds true. Even in slow-growth industries, those businesses driven by customer retention AND customer acquisition just do better. They make more money, have happier customers and are better places to work. Everyone just seems to understand the priorities without mission statement plaques. How about your business? Does this “Turnover Stat” apply to you? Do you track it?

Read the full article →

Colleen Murphy-Dunning: Green Jobs for Ex-Cons: Fixing Broken Systems

February 6, 2012

Reports by the Labor Department last Friday of an 8.3 percent unemployment rate, the lowest it’s been in nearly three years, signal hope of economic recovery. Almost two million jobs were added in the last year. Though warning of fluctuation, President Obama announced that “the recovery is speeding up.” But as they inevitably must, gross national statistics veil those boats not lifted on the rising tide. It is believed that the unemployment rate among ex-offenders exceeds fifty percent. (National statistics are not available, but estimates from state agencies of unemployment among the formerly incarcerated range from about 35 to more than 60 percent.) Our country, a promised land of opportunity, needs a national green jobs program that targets ex-offenders. The United States maintains 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population, locking up one in every hundred adults. More than half of all black men without a high school diploma will go to prison. Our extensively privatized corrections system generates the perverse incentive by which high incarceration rates buoy corporate profits. The 2005 annual report of the Corrections Corporation of America advises its investors that: Our growth is generally dependent upon our ability to obtain new contracts to develop and manage new correctional and detention facilities… [A]ny changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. More than 650,000 ex-offenders are released every year with little more than fifty dollars in pocket and a bus pass. Amid fitful economic recovery and the fierce competition of over-qualified job applicants, prospects appear grim. It’s no wonder recidivism rates top 60 percent in some states. Our country also faces immense environmental challenges spanning across the next few decades. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave a grade of D+ to the aging U.S. electric grid, which is inefficient, ill-equipped to manage intermittent energy technologies, and incapable of adapting to smart grid innovations. Our drinking and wastewater infrastructure both received grades of D-, and budgets allocated to upgrading these systems fall far short of what is required. The confluence of these challenges affords a clear and profound opportunity. The Urban Resources Initiative , through its GreenSkills program, works with small crews of ex-offenders every year, merging prison reentry with job training in urban forestry and environmental stewardship. We are part of a growing group of organizations across the country testing the premise that horticultural work can restore urban ecosystems, environmental value, and vulnerable populations. The recent installation of a solar panel array at two correctional facilities in Merced County, Illinois, to defray operational costs opens the possibility of not simply a transitional green jobs training program, but of a green jobs pipeline that runs from inside prisons to prisoner release and fulltime employment. Rather than contract Siemens to install the panels, as was done, could Merced County have created an internal job corps trained in solar installation and efficiency retrofits? In a short article last year, The Wall Street Journal cited a report on the “top 10 thriving industries” of 2011. Correctional facilities made the list with a haul of $35 billion in revenue during 2010. Wind and solar power also made the list. In 2011, Corrections and Medicaid were the only two areas of state budgets that saw a percentage increase over the previous year. Transportation, public assistance, and education all lost a share of their budgets, with public universities taking the biggest hit. Jacob Lew, President Obama’s budget director and Chief of Staff, has written that, “The budget is not just a collection of numbers, but an expression of our values and aspirations.” It seems Mr. Lew could hardly have uttered a more damning indictment of U.S. values. It’s time we did better.

Read the full article →

Vivian Weng: The Death of an American Tradition

February 6, 2012

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

Read the full article →

Amanda Feinberg: From EA to Anywhere: How to Get Promoted From Assistant-Level

February 6, 2012

We all dream of snagging a glamorous, high-paying job right out of college — not necessarily answering phones or scheduling meetings all day. But many of us do start our careers at the assistant-level, and if you think it’s a job that’s going nowhere, think again. I’ve found that starting your career as an executive assistant can be a great way to make connections, gain experience, and get promoted. All it takes is a little time, hard work, and willingness to step out of the box. Here’s how to make the most of your job as an assistant — and use it to get wherever it is you really want to be. See the Bigger Picture Your position as an assistant allows you to see an industry and a company at a higher level than many people in entry-level jobs get to. Use this to your advantage: Treat everything that comes across your desk as a learning experience. Take time to thoughtfully read the reports, projects, and memos that you handle. When you work with people from different departments, ask questions about what they do and what they’re working on. Think about career paths within the company you’d be interested in, and use your role to find out as much about them as you can. Be the Girl Everyone Wants to Know Depending on who you’re supporting, the exposure you get to people, places, and knowledge can be tremendous, and you can quickly become the person to know in the office. You have the authority to schedule meetings and make exceptions. You ultimately are the one who decides who gets face-time with the boss and who can wait in line. Use your power as the gatekeeper wisely. If you’re the reliable, responsive, and competent assistant everyone wishes they had, others will want to know you (or even poach you!). The more good contacts you can make, the better off you’ll be when you want to look for that next step. Prove Your Worth Chances are, your role will require you to frequently interact with a variety of people. Leverage this and offer to take on tasks outside your role to test the waters on different aspects of the industry or company. Ask to help with a project in an area that’s understaffed or to take the lead on a task no one else is keen on. Use your exposure to other teams as a key opportunity to augment your resume and to show your current boss and potential employers what you’re capable of. Become a Trusted Confidante Bottom line: Be the best employee you can be to your boss. You will likely be trusted with confidential projects or information — don’t betray that trust. Also, your role may occasionally blur the line between personal and professional — for example, selecting gifts for a spouse or family member, or helping out with a personal real estate acquisition. But instead of getting frustrated, look at it as an opportunity to become close with your boss — an opportunity that most people won’t get. If you think your boss is taking advantage and using you more as a personal assistant, then by all means, sound the alarm. But, start with the mentality that no task is too small or too big, and you’ll be seen as a team player. Working as an executive assistant can get you unique exposure to an industry and can be a great way to help set your career in motion. Think broadly, learn as much as you can, and establish a good relationship with your boss. The experience you gain can catapult you toward your dream job — or one you hadn’t even known about. This post was originally featured on The Daily Muse .

Read the full article →

Records Complicate Newt’s Lobbyist Denial

February 6, 2012

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

Read the full article →

Robert Creamer: Last Friday the GOP Had a Really Bad Day

February 6, 2012

Last Friday the GOP had a really bad day. It didn’t come in the form of new polling results — or some new political scandal. It was delivered to them by the economic statistics: Private sector jobs up 243,000 — almost 100,000 more than expected. Unemployment rate down to 8.3 percent. Twenty-three straight months of private sector jobs growth. But you say, this is not bad news — this is good news. Not for the GOP and its chances of ousting President Obama, seizing control of the Senate or maintaining its majority in the House. As Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell made ever so clear early last year, the Republican Leadership — and their backers on Wall Street — have one and only one goal: to defeat President Obama next fall. To do that, the GOP is betting against the American economy. For the last two years they have done everything in their power to slow America’s recovery from the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. They have opposed virtually every element of the president’s American Jobs Act. They brought the economy to the brink by threatening that they wouldn’t allow America to pay its bills during the debt ceiling standoff last year. They tried their best to prevent extension of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits that are so critical to maintaining buying power momentum as the economy begins to pick up speed. And, of course, they advocate returning to the regulatory and fiscal policies that caused the Great Recession in the first place. But the most significant thing they have done to stall the economic recovery has been their refusal to continue federal aid to state and local government. In the last 23 months, the economy has created 3.7 million new private sector jobs. But during the same period, it has created only 3.165 net total jobs. That is because government — mainly state and local government — laid off a net of about 535,000 people. If the Republicans in Congress had not refused to continue providing aid to state and local governments, it is likely that unemployment would be in the mid 7 percent range and the economy as a whole would have at least another half million jobs. And we would also be more likely to have more private sector jobs as well, since the additional teachers and firefighters and policemen who the Republicans basically fired, would have had money to spend on the products and services produced by private businesses. As much as they like to pretend they don’t agree with “Keynesian” economics, many Republicans completely understand that by refusing to provide aid to state and local government, they are hurting the economic recovery — and that is exactly what they are trying to do. They have been perfectly willing to allow our kids to have fewer teachers and bigger class sizes, and to allow our cities to have fewer policemen and firefighters all to advance their political goal of slowing the economic recovery. But despite their efforts to the contrary, the economy is beginning to gain traction. That is very important to the prospects of everyday Americans — and it is critically important politically. Anyone who has ever tried to move a car that is stuck in the snow — or in the mud — knows what I mean. As long as the car just keeps spinning its wheels, there seems to be no hope. But after you’ve shaken and pushed, and put sand under the tires and the car finally begins to get the smallest amount of traction — everyone’s spirits change. Suddenly there is hope that you’re finally going to get the car moving again. That’s what’s beginning to happen to the economy — and it will have an enormous effect on the attitudes of voters. It begins to give them hope that the president’s policies are, in fact, moving the economy in the right direction — that it actually is beginning to build up steam — that there is hope that middle class Americans are actually going to see their prospects begin to improve. And it gives lie to the ridiculous statements of Mitt Romney, who continued to claim as late as last Friday that Barack Obama has made the economy “worse.” The definition of “worse” is “not as good as it was before.” The economic disaster that was caused by the policies of the Bush administration — the same policies that Romney wants to bring back to the White House — caused the destruction of 8 million jobs. In fact, George Bush was the first president in modern American history to preside over net zero private sector job growth. As soon as President Obama took office he put into place policies that reversed those jobs losses. Monthly private sector job losses declined continuously and finally turned positive — and the economy has added private sector jobs continuously for the last 23 months. In the last two months alone, the economy has added 446,000 new jobs. That is not worse . In fact, that is commonly known as better . And that is a huge problem for the GOP political narrative this fall. In the next several weeks, Congress will rejoin the battle over the extension of the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits for those who are out of work for no fault of their own. Recall that this was the fight that involved the complete surrender of GOP opposition in the week leading to the Christmas holidays. Then, they agreed to a two month extension that guaranteed that the battle would be renewed — a fight that will once more highlight just how, when it comes to jobs, President Obama and the Democrats are doing battle with a “do nothing Republican Congress.” There will likely be ups and downs in the jobs numbers over the next eight months. But as long as the economy continues to gain traction — and as long as Democrats continue to battle for jobs legislation in Congress — there will be many more bad days ahead for the GOP’s strategy of making themselves look better by trying to make the economy worse. Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com . He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change . Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.

Read the full article →