the-report

Bob Beaty: Would You Pay For It?

by on June 2, 2011

Huffington Post…

One of the characteristics of toiling in obscurity is the limited shelf life. No sentient being, or company for that matter, can stand anonymity for long. Fortunately, there are three solutions; pray for a miracle, change the perception or shuffle off this mortal coil. In the case of most SmallCap companies, the equivalent of the third eventuality would be to shut the doors. Let’s deal with door number two — change the perception — as the most viable, since miracles only happen infrequently and, dare I say, in obscurity. Other than a fraternity party I attended many years ago in Ithaca, New York, but I digress. Let’s talk fee-based research. Rough segue, but an extremely interesting topic. If you were/are the CEO of a SmallCap company whose stock couldn’t get attention if you yelled ‘open bar’ at an investor conference in Vegas, then you need to familiarize yourself with the genre. As do investors. Once you understand how it works, it amazes me that anyone depends at all on the affectations and frequent conflicts of interest of ‘traditional’ investment dealer research. Begin with the premise that your corporate story or vision is worth telling, which doesn’t include you 40-something game developers eating hot pockets in mom’s basement. The hell of it is, there are some great stories out there: Lifesaving biotech stories, the next Microsoft (or Apple) or a killer electronic device or cost-saving service. If you can objectively conclude the world needs to know, or alternatively hire someone to tell you it has legs, it probably should gain exposure. And inform potential investors. But how do you get noticed? Fee-based research is a viable arrow in the overall IR quiver. I gained some good insight chatting to independent analyst Patrick Murphy, CFA, and principal of www.MurphyAnalytics.com. Some interesting observations: • SmallCaps tend to commission fee-based research when times for the company are good and want those facts disseminated to investors • Disclosures on the report are key. Investors must satisfy themselves that the analyst’s compensation is fully disclosed as well as their ethics • CFA’s are held to very high standards and having that designation ups the independence and credibility of the work • No matter how informational and conflict-free the report, it must be used a one of many research tools. Never make an investment decision based on one report • If a report is too promotional or draws unrealistic conclusions and/or price targets, it should likely be ignored • The majority of fee-based research shops do not take shares as compensation, thereby negating a vested or conflicted interest in the market performance of the shares • The research should work for the investor, not the company In the majority of cases, the company does not see — if the report contains one — the analyst’s price target or rating until publication. The reason is to maintain the independence of the report and not allow the company to exert any influence on the projected price. The company always has the right to spike the report if it feels there are problems, but since investors will never know, the point is moot. The main enigma for investors is that fee-based research is likely going to be positive. A company facing bankruptcy or some other calamity is not going to bring attention to it. Plus, it likely doesn’t have the money to pay for a report. I don’t see this issue as a problem, based on the fact that if these reports are used first and foremost as information sources, the investor takeaway is an in-depth history of the company, good rundown of the financials, comparison to the metrics of peers and a sense of future direction. Analysts, especially those with CFA designations, are not in the habit of making stuff up. The numbers are the numbers and all those used for the report are already freely available to the public. Investors should never confuse a positive tone with a flattering or pandering one; alarm bells should sound if the tenor of the report is overtly gushy. Compared to Wall Street, or traditional investment sealer research, fee-based reports give — or should — a clear picture of all compensation. ‘Traditional’ research rarely does this and while I draw no conclusions as to why, wouldn’t an investor just rather know? All a reputable fee-based analyst receives is a disclosed cash payment. No soft dollar arrangements, no investment banking relationships and no axe to grind. For my money, or rather a SmallCap company’s money, that seems a good deal for all involved.

See more here:
Bob Beaty: Would You Pay For It?

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

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Income Inequality Is Soaring Globally — Even In Sweden

May 3, 2011

Widening income inequality has been a thorn in America’s side for some time now. Turns out, other countries in the developed world aren’t exempt from it, either. Yes, even Sweden. In a new report , the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finds that since the mid-1980s income inequality has increased in 77 percent, or 17 of the 22 surveyed countries. Across all OECD countries, the report found, the average income of the richest tenth of the population is now nine times that of the poorest tenth. Globalization, technological innovation and relaxed regulatory environments have all contributed to the growing gap between rich and poor, the OECD found. The report pays special attention, though, to the changing formation of families, pointing to research showing the income inequality has risen in the U.S. as a result of growing numbers of single-headed households. Globally, household income has increased overall by 1.7 percent annually, the OECD found. But not all income levels have benefited equally. The world’s bottom decile of earners saw their income grow annually by only 1.4 percent in the last 30 years or so, while the top decile grew at an annual rate of 2.0 percent. Countries at both extremes of the inequality spectrum are moving closer to the center. Mexico and Chile, which together have the two highest levels of inequality, have seen the gap between rich and poor narrow in recent years. But surprisingly, it’s in the historically egalitarian countries of Denmark, Germany and Sweden that the divide between the rich and poor has widened most in the past decade. This isn’t just an issue of poor versus rich, however. The middle-class has largely been left behind too: “The highest 10% of earners have been leaving the middle earners behind more rapidly than the lowest earners have been drifting away from the middle,” the report’s authors write. Capital income, or income derived from wealth not work, has been a particularly notable source of rising inequality, the report notes, widening more than wage inequality in two-thirds of surveyed countries. Still, capital income remains a relatively low percentage of overall income at 7 percent. On Monday, though, Paul Krugman noted that 400 people alone accounted for 10 percent of all U.S. capital gains income in 2007. With the exception of France, Japan and Spain, wages of the rich have grown more than those of poor since the mid-1980s, the report finds. That has something to do, according to the OECD, with the declining number of average hours worked by low-wage workers, even in comparison to also declining hours worked by the high-wage workforce. Only in Greece and the United States, the report finds, have the average number of hours worked risen for the bottom quintile while declining for the top. (See below chart): The below graph shows where inequality has risen, where it has fallen, and by how much since the mid-1980s: Read the paper: GROWING INCOME INEQUALITY IN OECD COUNTRIES: WHAT DRIVES IT AND HOW CAN POLICY TACKLE IT?

Read the full article →

Small Business Owners Plan To Hire Despite Cash Flow Concerns

April 20, 2011

Yesterday, American Express OPEN released the results of its latest Small Business Monitor, a biannual survey of small business owners. While the report revealed that more small business owners plan to hire over the next six months, it also found that fewer business owners are comfortable with their current cash flow situation. Here’s a graphical look at this trend.

Read the full article →

Is The Military Ensuring Quality Education For Soldiers?

March 2, 2011

The Department of Defense has doled out increasing amounts of federal money in recent years to allow active-duty military personnel to pursue college degrees in their spare time. But the Department does not have the proper controls in place to ensure the money is flowing to quality higher education programs, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office. In particular, government investigators noted that the Defense Department has very little oversight of online college programs, even though such courses represented 71 percent of classes taken by service members. “The amount of tuition assistance funding going toward distance learning programs creates new oversight challenges for DOD and its military services, especially since DOD oversight has primarily focused on schools offering traditional classroom instruction on military installations,” the report noted. The GAO also found that the Defense Department does not properly gather information from other oversight bodies that track college quality, such as the Department of Education and college accrediting bodies. The report noted that the Defense Department requires colleges receiving federal money to be accredited, but said that there is little follow-up about problems that may be developing. That means the Defense Department might not be aware if a school was on probation or facing sanctions because of problems such as misleading recruiting or marketing tactics. There is also no comprehensive system to track complaints made by service members about particular schools, the report found, making it difficult to pinpoint problems that may be occurring repeatedly. The Defense Department has acknowledged the deficiencies found in the report, and officials noted that plans are in the works to establish more uniform oversight. But those additional controls, such as requirements for student counseling and more disclosure of graduation rates, will not be in place until 2012. The GAO’s findings will be the subject of a Senate hearing Wednesday hosted by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.). The Defense Department’s tuition assistance program, which provides up to $250 per credit hour for active-duty military, paid out $517 million to more than 377,000 service members in 2009, up substantially from $157 million in 2000. Although the GAO’s findings did not focus on any particular sector of higher education, for-profit colleges have come under heightened scrutiny because of the growing amounts of military and veteran benefit dollars going to their programs. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has held a series of hearings on the for-profit college sector over the past year, released a report in December noting a fourfold increase in the amount of Defense Department tuition dollars going to large for-profit education companies between 2006 and 2010. Tuition benefits from the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs are especially attractive to for-profit colleges because they are not counted as federal student loan and grant dollars. For-profit colleges must abide by a federal rule that prohibits a school from receiving more than 90 percent of revenues from federal higher education dollars. With many for-profit colleges receiving more than 80 percent of revenues from federal student loan and grant dollars, active-duty military and veterans offer a way for schools to fulfill the 10 percent obligation. Executives at for-profit education corporations are often quizzed about military recruiting on quarterly earnings calls, and many companies have set up entire divisions dedicated to recruiting active-duty soldiers and veterans. Overall, the industry has been criticized amid data that shows students at for-profit schools take on much more debt and default on federal student loans at much higher rates than other college students. Even before the GAO report was released Tuesday, a lobbying group representing the for-profit college sector, the Coalition for Educational Success, released a highly critical statement rebuking Congress’ investigative agency. For-profit colleges have been engaged in a legal and rhetorical battle with the GAO ever since last summer, when the agency released a stinging report that documented deceptive and high-pressure recruiting tactics used at numerous schools. The GAO made revisions to the report a few months later that changed wording and elaborated on some of the findings – revisions that for-profit college lobbyists say undermined the entire report. “After producing a substandard and discredited report in 2010, they test credulity by rolling out their 2011 version without ever taking responsibility for the lemon they rolled out last year,” the statement from the Coalition read. The GAO has stood behind the original findings of the report, saying the changes were simply clarifications. Harkin, who will testify at Wednesday’s hearing, said in a statement that Tuesday’s GAO report renewed questions about the amount of federal money going to such schools. “Because of the high costs, high withdrawal rates, and high default rates among the general student population, combined with troubling stories I have heard from veterans, I am deeply concerned that there is inadequate oversight,” Harkin said.

Read the full article →

The 10 Major Conclusions Of The Financial Crisis Commission

January 27, 2011

In a report released today, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission found that “reckless” Wall Street firms, an abundance of cheap credit and “weak” federal regulators caused the crisis. “This financial crisis could have been avoided. Let us be clear,” chairman Phil Angelides said at the Washington press conference marking the official release of the report. “The record is replete with evidence of failures. None of what happened was an act of God.” Former California treasurer Angelides confirmed that the bipartisan panel appointed by Congress to investigate the financial crisis concluded that several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law and has referred multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution. The report also revealed that Goldman Sachs collected $2.9 billion from the American International Group as payout on a speculative trade it placed for the benefit of its own account, receiving the bulk of those funds after AIG received an enormous taxpayer rescue, according to the FCIC. The 662-page report, available online , and as a book, offers 10 main conclusions: “This financial crisis was avoidable.” “Despite the expressed view of many on Wall Street and in Washington that the crisis could not have been foreseen or avoided, there were warning signs,” the report reads.”The tragedy was that they were ignored or discounted.” “Widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets.” “Securities and Exchange Commission could have required more capital and halted risky practices at the big investment banks. It did not,” the report reads. “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other regulators could have clamped down on Citigroup’s excesses in the run-up to the crisis. They did not. Policy makers and regulators could have stopped the runaway mortgage securitization train. They did not. “Dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions were a key cause of this crisis.” Financial institutions acted recklessly and depended too heavily on short term loans, the inquiry found. “Compensation systems–designed in an environment of cheap money, intense competition, and light regulation–too often rewarded the quick deal, the short-term gain–without proper consideration of long-term consequences,” it reads. “A combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency put the financial system on a collision course with crisis.” The inquiry found that in the years leading up to the crisis, American households, and institutions, borrowed too much and saved too little. “When the housing and mortgage markets cratered, the lack of transparency, the extraordinary debt loads, the short-term loans, and the risky assets all came home to roost. What resulted was panic,” the report reads. “We had reaped what we had sown.” “The government was ill prepared for the crisis, and its inconsistent response added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.” Key government agencies, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were behind the curve, the report concluded. “They were hampered because they did not have a clear grasp of the financial system they were charged with overseeing, particularly as it had evolved in the years leading up to the crisis.” “There was a systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics.” Many borrowers lied about being able to pay mortgages, lenders made loans they knew borrowers couldn’t afford, the report said. “Countrywide executives recognized that many of the loans they were originating could result in ‘catastrophic consequences.’ Less than a year later, they noted that certain high-risk loans they were making could result not only in foreclosures but also in ‘financial and reputational catastrophe’ for the firm. But they did not stop.” “Collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline lit and spread the flame of contagion and crisis.” The report found irresponsible lending was prevalent, and there were warnings, but “the Federal Reserve neglected its mission,” and mortgage lenders passed the risk along. “From the speculators who flipped houses to the mortgage brokers who scouted the loans, to the lenders who issued the mortgages, to the financial firms that created the mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations… no one in this pipeline of toxic mortgages had enough skin in the game.” “Over-the-counter derivatives contributed significantly to this crisis…” Speculating on devices like collateralized debt obligations fanned the flames, with everyone from farmers to corporations to investors betting on prices and loan defaults. When the housing bubble popped, these were at the center of the fallout. “The failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction…” But, the report found, those bets wouldn’t have been possible without the seal of approval from ratings agencies. “This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their down- grades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms,” the report reads.

Read the full article →

Goldman: New Banks Rules Will Hurt ‘Small’ Corporations

November 12, 2010

Requirements that banks hold more cash to prevent against economic downturns won’t just hurt the banks themselves, but also the companies they lend to, Goldman Sachs says in a new report . Rules that require banks to keep a certain percentage of their assets as rainy-day capital will be, and already have been, a drag on the overall corporate world, the report , principally authored by Goldman analyst Richard Ramsden, says (hat tip to Politico’s Morning Money ). “Small- and mid-sized” companies that have relied on bank financing will be hit hardest, the report says. Under the international Basel III requirements agreed on in September, banks will eventually (by 2019) have to keep the equivalent of 8.5 percent of their assets on hand, to guard against a crisis. As Goldman notes in the report, the actual percentages could be higher, depending on a particular country’s rules. Goldman’s argument goes like this: the new rules will mean banks can’t extend as many loans, which drive loan prices higher. Demand for the loans, the report says, suffers, and “smaller” corporate borrowers, which can’t issue bonds as easily as their larger cousins, are hit hardest. From the report: “These firms are likely to grow more slowly than the larger firms and multinationals that enjoy more flexibility in financing. Slower growth among smaller and mid-sized firms may act as an overhang on economic growth and the job creation that these firms traditionally propel. And because the adjustment to higher prices and constraints on credit availability is a dynamic process, the potential ongoing rise in capital requirements means that smaller firms are likely to bear the cost for some time to come, acting as a continuing drag on bank loan growth.” According to the report, these so-called smaller companies include Genzyme, Symantec, Adobe and eBay. As Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit argued last month at The Economist ‘s Buttonwood Gathering, high requirements could throw a wet blanket on the economy. “There is a point at which more is not necessarily better,” he said, referring to capital requirements. “Double-digit ratios will have direct negative impacts on lending, capital formation, aggregate demand and growth.” But experts outside the financial community disagree. Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England (that country’s central bank), said last month that even the higher requirements won’t be high enough. “Even the new levels of capital are insufficient to prevent another crisis,” King said. “Some of the calculations of the alleged economic costs of higher capital requirements presented by the industry seem to be highly exaggerated.” What’s more, evidence suggests that companies are in a relatively strong position. Despite the reported cost of borrowing from Goldman, the near-zero main interest rate makes most corporate borrowing extremely cheap. As of the end of last month, U.S. companies held about $1 trillion in cash . Many of them are choosing to hoard, rather than spend, that cash, a defensive tactic that bolsters their position, to the detriment, experts say, of the larger economy.

Read the full article →

SEC Probing Funds Of Hedge Funds

September 10, 2010

The securities regulator is investigating investment advisory firms that channel investors’ money into hedge funds, the Wall Street Journal reported. The probe will investigate whether the firms are properly supervising client money and dealing with potential conflicts of interest, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Read the full article →

ADP: Private Employers Added Just 42,000 Jobs In July

August 4, 2010

Private employers added 42,000 jobs in July, compared with a revised gain of 19,000 in June, the report by a payrolls processor ADP Employer Services showed on Wednesday.

Read the full article →

Hedge Funds To Boost Use Of Trading Algorithms For Stocks, Tabb Group Says

July 19, 2010

Asset managers such as hedge funds will probably increase their use of computer programs known as algorithms to execute their stock trades in 2011, according to securities-industry research firm Tabb Group LLC. The proportion of orders processed by algorithms will probably amount to 35 percent next year, up from 29 percent in 2010, according to a report from Tabb analyst Cheyenne Morgan and director of research Adam Sussman. Human traders at broker- dealers will execute 35 percent of orders in 2011, down from 39 percent this year, the report said.

Read the full article →

HREC: Hotel transactions picking up

March 26, 2010

are well into their economic life, the report said. Lenders have shown signs that they are dealing with distressed hotel positions, said Scott Stephens, a partner in the HREC Tampa office, in the release. Although lenders may be more motivated to dispose

Read the full article →

Deloitte’s Theory on CRE: Could Be, May Be, and Expected To

March 22, 2010

Deloitte is out with a report titled “Perspectives on Real Estate: Uncovering Opportunity in a Distressed Market”. It’s a good read. It pretty much tells you everything we already knew was broken, that we are facing problems with: Declining Real Estate Values Debt Maturity and Credit Access Stalled Construction The rest of the report is peppered with uncertainty, and

Read the full article →

Airport Body Scans Increase Radiation Exposure Risk, Safety Committee Says

February 5, 2010

By Jonathan Tirone Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) — Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation, an inter-agency report said. Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is “extremely small,” said the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety report, which is restricted to the agencies concerned and not meant for public circulation. The group includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency , Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization . A more accurate assessment about the health risks of the screening won’t be possible until governments decide whether all passengers will be systematically scanned or randomly selected, the report said. Governments must justify the additional risk posed to passengers, and should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.” President Barack Obama has pledged $734 million to deploy airport scanners that use x-rays and other technology to detect explosives, guns and other contraband. The U.S. and European countries including the U.K. have been deploying more scanners at airports after the attempted bombing on Christmas Day of a Detroit-bound Northwest airline flight. “There is little doubt that the doses from the backscatter x-ray systems being proposed for airport security purposes are very low,” Health Protection Agency doctor Michael Clark said by phone from Didcot, England. “The issue raised by the report is that even though doses from the systems are very low, they feel there is still a need for countries to justify exposures.” 3-D Imaging A backscatter x-ray is a machine that can render a three- dimensional image of people by scanning them for as long as 8 seconds, the report says. The technology has also raised privacy issues in countries including Germany because it yields images of the naked body. The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation. European Union regulators plan to finish a study in April on the effects of scanning technology on travelers’ privacy and health. Amsterdam, Heathrow and Manchester are among European airports that have installed the devices or plan to do so. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has said that it ordered 150 scanners from OSI Systems Inc. ’s Rapiscan unit and will buy an additional 300 imaging devices this year. The agency currently uses 40 machines, which cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, produced by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. at 19 airports including San Francisco, Atlanta and Washington D.C. To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Tirone at jtirone@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Financial Rescue to Cost Taxpayers Less Than Expected, TARP Watchdog Says

January 31, 2010

By Brendan Murray Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue the financial system probably will cost taxpayers much less than first predicted, according to a watchdog monitoring the $700 billion effort. “There are clear signs that aspects of the financial system are far more stable than they were at the height of the crisis in the fall of 2008,” a report from TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky to Congress said yesterday. “It now appears that the ultimate cost of TARP to the American taxpayer, while still substantial, might be significantly less than initially estimated.” Barofsky’s quarterly audit is more upbeat about the program’s near-term prospects to recoup taxpayers’ money than an October report in which he said the final cost could be “substantial.” His latest report said TARP is entering a transition as financial aid for banks including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. is recouped. While the audit is welcome news for the American taxpayer, it also says the program has its share of shortcomings. There’s been “little fundamental change” in executive compensation at companies that benefited from TARP, according to the report. Because of the subsidies, some of the biggest banks are “even larger,” and government help for the housing market risks “re-inflating that bubble” that was at the heart of the financial market collapse, the report said. “Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car,” the report said. Longer term, the U.S. needs a better way to deal with financial crises, Barofsky’s report said. ‘Moral Hazard’ “The substantial costs of TARP — in money, moral hazard effects on the market, and government credibility — will have been for naught if we do nothing to correct the fundamental problems in our financial system and end up in a similar or even greater crisis in two, or five, or 10 years,” it said. Barofsky has also expanded investigations into misconduct related to the financial-industry bailout, including insider trading, accounting violations, mortgage fraud, public corruption and money laundering. The number of opened cases by Barofsky’s office increased by 41 percent in the fourth quarter. Some 25 criminal and civil probes were started in the quarter, and there were 77 total active cases. Through last year’s third quarter, the Washington- based office opened 61 cases with 54 active, Barofsky said at the time. Next Phase The next phase of TARP will focus on foreclosure mitigation, small-business lending and support for asset-backed securities markets, the report said. Banks are able to raise capital privately again and the Treasury Department is profiting from some TARP investments, it said. Even though money is returning to the Treasury through repayments, dividends and interest, moral hazard remains because investors and companies still see the government as a backstop against failure from excessive risk-taking, Barofsky’s report said. “The market is more convinced than ever that the government will step in as necessary to save systemically significant institutions,” the report said. That perception was reinforced when Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner extended TARP until Oct. 3, “permitting Treasury to maintain a war chest of potential rescue funding at the same time that banks that have shown questionable ability to return to profitability are exiting TARP programs,” the report said. Bank Repayments The Treasury , which administers the TARP, had planned to spend about $500 billion of the total amount to support financial firms, auto companies, purchase mortgage-backed securities and help homeowners. Bank repayments have totaled $165 billion and exposure was further cut by another $5 billion, leaving almost $370 billion available in TARP at the end of 2009, the report said. One of the goals of TARP’s injection of capital into banks was to jumpstart lending. That’s not happening, the report said. “Lending continues to decrease, month after month,” it said. A separate TARP program announced in March designed specifically to boost loans to small businesses “has still not been implemented by Treasury,” the report said. To contact the reporter on this story: Brendan Murray in Washington at brmurray@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Value of Distressed Commercial Real Estate in South Florida?

January 8, 2010

Earlier this week, we discussed a report by Grubbs & Ellis that provided a “forecast” of South Florida’s commercial real estate market. According to the report, in 2010 landlords can expect to see an increase in the number of vacancies …

Read the full article →

Huff TV: ABC News Profiles Move Your Money (VIDEO)

January 8, 2010

On Friday, ABC’s World News Tonight reported on Move Your Money. Describing the project as a “grassroots movement,” the report pointed to Move Your Money ‘s fast-growing Facebook fan page as evidence of its growing momentum. Move Your Money aims to change the practices of America’s too-big-to-fail banks by encouraging account holders at those banks to withdraw their money and deposit those funds into smaller, better-managed community banks or credit unions. WATCH ABC’S REPORT:

Read the full article →

Cash For Caulkers: A New Stimulus Package For Weatherization

November 18, 2009

White House officials are looking at creating a new version of cash for clunkers — this time for home weatherization. McKinsey, the consulting firm [authors of the report], estimate that households could reduce their energy use by 28 percent over the next decade. In terms of greenhouse gases, that would be the equivalent of taking half of all vehicles in this country off the road.

Read the full article →

Great Wall of China May Have Been Damaged by Gold Explorer, Xinhua Reports

November 11, 2009

By Rebecca Keenan Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) — A Chinese gold mining company may have destroyed 100 meters (328 feet) of the Great Wall in China’s inner Mongolian region while prospecting for gold, Xinhua reported citing a government department. Hohhot Kekao Mining Co. is alleged to have knocked two holes through a part of the wall that was built during the Qin Dynasty, the report said. The company ignored five orders to stop work by the regional government, it said. Police and China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage are investigating the allegations, the report said citing Wang Dafang, director of the region’s cultural relics department. The Great Wall consists of several walls with a total length of 50,000 kilometers (31,000 miles), the report said. Damaging the Wall is punishable by a fine of as much as 500,000 yuan ($73,250) or a jail term of as much as 10 years, Xinhua said. To contact the reporter on this story: Rebecca Keenan in Melbourne at rkeenan5@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Moody's “sceptical” of property market recovery – Property Week

November 3, 2009

“We however remain sceptical of this recovery and anticipate further value declines until 2010 in all EMEA CMBS markets,” said Christian Aufsatz, a Moody’s senior vice president and co-author of the report. The performance deterioration in … The rate at which defaulted loans were transferred into special servicing also increased, as fewer events of default are expected to be cured with many sponsors unable or unwilling to support their loan. Over the coming quarters, …

Read the full article →

CIA Hired Blackwater Contractors for Al-Qaeda Assassination Plan, NYT Says

August 19, 2009

By Dave McCombs Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) — The Central Intelligence Agency hired contractors from Blackwater USA, a private security company, under a plan to assassinate senior Al Qaeda members, the New York Times reported, citing current and former government officials. Blackwater helped the agency with planning, training and surveillance in the multi-million dollar program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects, the report said. A spokesman for the parent company, which changed its name to Xe Services in February, was not immediately available for comment.

Read the full article →

RCA: Trillions in Assets on the Hook

July 31, 2009

$2 trillion in major commercial properties, traded during the peak of the current cycle, are at risk, says Real Capital Analytics in a report issued Wednesday.

Read the full article →

U.S., U.K. Budget Gaps to Lead G-20 This Year, IMF Staff Says

July 30, 2009

By Sandrine Rastello and Alison Sider July 30 (Bloomberg) — The budget deficits of the U.S. and U.K. will be the largest this year of the world’s top 20 advanced and emerging economies and clear exit strategies are needed to ease investor concerns, an International Monetary Fund staff report said

Read the full article →