time

Huffington Post…

It was around this time of year, almost 20 years ago, when I first learned that managers are human too. I was fresh out of college and all of my management theory coursework stated that the boss was hardworking and fair. The boss was a mentor and a motivator. The boss assigned work based upon ability and provided training to shore up skills. The fact that bosses had human foibles and failings were simply not mentioned. So, it came as a big surprise when a boss approached me about an open job requisition I was sourcing. The hiring manager had whittled the candidates down to the top three and references were being sought. The top candidate’s boss came to my office to explain that while his subordinate was likely the most qualified for and deserving of the position, he would not provide a recommendation for her. Apparently she was the only person keeping his department together. Her organizational knowledge and positional expertise were unmatched. If she were to be promoted, he would need to hire two or three new employees to replace her. Even with training, it would take over a year before his department would run smoothly again. He simply could not afford to let her go. The gravity and reality of the situation were eye-opening. I learned that day that bosses are human… just like the rest of us. Even with the most professional of managers, there are some conversations they would prefer to avoid. Listed are the top 10. Fashion Police . Bosses have enough on their plates already. They do not want to add evaluating your attire. Review the written dress code, and observe the unwritten dress code. Remember what grandmother said, dress for the job you want, not the job you have. Total Package . Appropriate attire is just the beginning, as everything about you should communicate that you are a professional. This includes your entire visual résumé. Your visual résumé begins with your wardrobe, and includes your grooming and accessories. It continues to your workspace and your work. Your Attention, Please. Bosses do not want to monitor your electronic ADD. All cell phones and mobile devices should be turned off when in meetings or interacting with others. Social Media is a great equalizer. Your boss is on Facebook and Twitter too. Be wary of any job related posting … especially if it is negative. Constantly checking your personal email distracts from your focus at work. Stealing Time . While not everyone punches a time-clock, bosses are not as oblivious as you may think. Being late to work, arriving late back from lunch and being tardy to meetings is noticed. Whether you are “just” checking your Facebook page, chatting on your cell phone with friends or shooting the breeze with colleagues, you are stealing time. The company is paying you to get work done. Office Soap Opera Stars . There is enough happening in the office. Do not add your own personal drama. This includes everything from flirting to full-blown affairs. Bosses want you to have boundaries between your personal and professional lives. More Picturesque Speech . Bosses cringe when you open your mouth and foul language, inappropriate topics or grammatically incorrect speech comes out. Your inability to monitor your mouth reflects poorly on everyone. Facts Not Feelings . The boss is pulled in many different directions already. When you need to report something, take the time to think before you speak. Present the facts of the situation. Panicking only adds stress. And speaking of facts, understand how the company makes money and how your part plays into the bigger picture. This knowledge will help to guide and direct your behavior. Anticipatory Actions . When there are issues, do bring the boss at least one possible solution. While understanding what caused the problem is relevant, blaming others and making excuses is unhelpful. Even when there are no immediate issues, take the time to look forward and plan ahead. It is better to act than react. Next Stop, Knowledge . The boss can not possibly be fully responsible for your career. You need to be responsible for your professional development. Research and source training that you need. Make it your goal to stay current in your field. Replace Yourself . If the boss finds you irreplaceable, your chances of promotion diminish greatly. Divide your job into manageable chunks and train others in your department as back-ups. This way, you will position yourself for promotion. The candidate’s boss was looking out for his own best interests. Fortunately, the hiring manager was savvy. He was able to read between the lines of the weak recommendation. The candidate was offered the job and she took it. Hopefully your boss would not attempt to sabotage your opportunity for promotion. But chances are there is something your boss wishes you knew, but is hesitant to tell you. An honest self-evaluation, using these top 10 tips as a starting point, may prove to be enlightening. I would like to thank the following managers who took the time to tell me the things they would prefer not tell their employees and consultants who enlighten managers on such delicate communications: Tom Armour, Chantay Bridges, Marlene Caroselli, Kathi Elster, Pamela Feld, Diane Gayeski, Neil Gussman, Antoine Lane, Holly Paul, Don Phin, Jack Signorelli, Patricia Sigmon, Leslie Singer, as well as many other HARO responders who opted not to be mentioned by name. Jodi’s latest book, “The Etiquette Book: A Complete Guide to Modern Manners” is now available. Chapters 10 – 14 cover professional protocol in detail.

Read more:
Jodi R. R. Smith: The Top Ten Things Your Boss Will Never Tell You But Wishes You Knew

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

Huffington Post…

NEW YORK — With Goldman Sachs’ latest high-profile hire, the Wall Street giant is unlikely to shake its Government Sachs nickname or the reputation for exerting undue influence in Washington that it implies. Goldman announced Friday that it had named three-term Sen. Judd Gregg an international adviser to the bank. The New Hampshire Republican will “provide strategic advice to the firm and its clients, and assist in business development initiatives across our global franchise,” Goldman said in a statement. “Judd Gregg’s experience and insight will contribute significantly to our firm and our continuing focus on supporting economic growth,” said Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s chairman and CEO. “A strong financial sector is critical to our nation and one of the key engines of job creation in our country,” said Gregg, who was the ranking Republican on the Appropriations; Banking; Housing and Urban Affairs; and Health Education Labor and Pensions Committees. “I hope that I can bring to Goldman Sachs some ideas and perspectives that will help the firm continue to be a leader in supporting its clients in their pursuit of the capital, credit and advice they need to be successful.” In the wake of the financial crisis, which has been partly blamed on the excesses of Wall Street banks such as Goldman, Gregg was an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s effort to tighten oversight of the financial industry. He was also a defender of Goldman during the heated congressional debate over the $700 billion bank bailout. Early last year, Gregg said that Democrats were overreacting to civil charges filed against Goldman for securities fraud by using the indictment to push regulatory reform. He noted at the time that the allegations had not yet been proven in court. “It’s really disingenuous for some people to pursue regulatory reform based off this one instance,” the retired senator said on MSNBC. “This is a single event, we don’t even know what the outcome will be.” During an April 2010 appearance on Fox News , Gregg corrected the host Greta Van Susteren’s assertion that Goldman received a $10 billion bailout. The bank didn’t need the money, and that it’s wrong to criticize them for handing out big bonuses, he said: VAN SUSTEREN: Goldman Sachs got bailed out, right? GREGG: They didn’t ask. I don’t think in Goldman’s case they were looking to be bailed out. VAN SUSTEREN: They took it, right? GREGG: They were told to. If you’re going to go back and do some history, what happened — I was there at the time. [Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson called in the top 10 banks and said you are all going to take this money, because if only those of you who are in real trouble take the money it is going to be a message to the marketplace that you guys are in trouble and the others are stronger and that is going to turn the playing field against you and you are going to get in worse trouble. He said all the top 10 banks, you have to take this money there. So there were four or five who didn’t want to take it — Wells Fargo, Goldman, a number of others — but ended up having to take it. VAN SUSTEREN: So I’m wrong to think they got a bailout from taxpayers and turned around and paid big bonuses? I’m wrong in being sort of, like, hyper-critical of them? GREGG: In the Goldman case I think it is hard to say that. You can make that case with Bank of America because of the Merrill deal with Citibank, and with a couple of others that clearly got support when they were in difficult straits and then gave large bonuses.

Continued here:
Former GOP Senator Hired By Goldman Sachs

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

Elizabeth Warren Fans Flame Patrick McHenry On Facebook

May 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — Rep. Patrick McHenry’s pants may not be on fire, but his Facebook page is getting thoroughly flamed after he called Elizabeth Warren a liar Tuesday in a subcommittee hearing. Fans of Warren think the North Carolina Republican took some unacceptable liberties with the boss of the nascent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and they’re demanding that he get some McEtiquette and apologize. Hundreds — and probably thousands — have flocked to McHenry’s fan page to singe him . “I ‘like’ the fact that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans are appalled by your behavior,” wrote Jill Budzynski. “You are an insult to the title of chairman of any committee. It is out of order to abuse a loyal public servant who is trying her best to accommodate your flip-flopping of schedules. How reprehensible to accuse her of lying. Apologize now.” The dust-up Tuesday came near the end of a hearing on the CFPB when the Oversight Committee’s top Democrat, Maryland’s Elijah Cummings, noted that Warren had stayed beyond the time he had seen agreed to in internal committee communications. But McHenry denied there was any agreement, even though the hearing time had been changed as recently as that morning to accommodate the subcommittee. “You’re making this up,” McHenry told her, to her shock and gasps from the hearing audience. Warren and her staff had the same understanding as Cummings, and sources confirmed the previously agreed upon timing for The Huffington Post. Warren is an extremely popular figure among people who think Wall Street and the big banks need to be reined in, and they’re expressing their displeasure on Facebook — even if it galls them to have to become a “fan” of McHenry to do so. “I also clicked ‘like’ under duress. However, I am filled with hope for America after reading all these comments,” wrote Margarita T. Gonzalez-Newcomer. “One thing that is amazing to me is how politicians forget the innate FAIRNESS of the American people. Even when the parties try to [divide] us and pit us against each other, the American people snap out of that fog to stand up for fair play. Thanks to all who have commented on behalf of Ms. Warren.” “Your behavior toward Elizabeth Warren shows that you’re not only a greedy bastard with no regard for your constituents, you’re also arrogant and rude,” posted Beverly Tuttle Potvin. “Any apology from you would undoubtedly be an entirely insincere and empty gesture on your part so I won’t even bother with that demand.” And some North Carolina residents appear to have found the page, as well. “You are the liar Pat!” wrote Mike Sprinkle, whose own Facebook page lists his home as Hiddenite, N.C. Though that’s just outside McHenry’s district, Sprinkle added, “I can & will vote against you.” The congressman did have the occasional defender. “SorosBOTS are out in force today to protect that socialist Elizabeth Warren,” posted Kristen Peterson, referring to the billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros. “I clicked like to let you know I appreciate you calling this woman out. Thank you and KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!” McHenry’s spokesman said he was in a meeting Wednesday morning and could not immediately comment. But after Tuesday’s hearing he stuck to his position, and blamed Warren for stiffing Congress on the time. “Committee staff worked diligently to accommodate Ms. Warren’s schedule,” McHenry said. “I was shocked by Ms. Warren’s blatant sense of entitlement,” he added. “She was apparently under the assumption that she could dictate a one-hour time limit for her testimony to Congress and that we were there at her behest instead of the other way around. This is just further example of her disregard for congressional oversight.” McHenry press secretary Michael Babyak noted that McHenry wouldn’t try to shut down his page, pointing to a post he wrote in the past praising the dialogue it produced . “I’d also like to express my appreciation for my Facebook family — whether you agree or disagree with me — you are speaking out and engaging in the civil and honest debate that is the cornerstone of our country’s political process,” the congressman wrote. “Please continue to share your input and feedback — and give each other’s opinions the respect they rightly deserve. And always remember — this is a free speech zone.” Note: This reporter has just created his own Facebook fan page, and has not had the pleasure of being flamed in a similar fashion as McHenry. But anyone who would like to share, can do so here .

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: The Case For A Non-European IMF Leader

May 24, 2011

The debate over choosing the next managing director of the International Monetary Fund is ostensibly about whether its succession process is transparent and merit-based. But this is code for a more important issue -– whether the time has come for Western Europe to give up control of the IMF. There is a valid economic case that the next chief should come not from Europe, as tradition dictates, but from one of the emerging markets. India, South Africa, China, Mexico and Brazil all have strong candidates.

Read the full article →

WATCH: GOP Botches Multiple Facts, Calls Elizabeth Warren A Liar

May 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — Republicans attempting to grill Elizabeth Warren on the creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had to be schooled repeatedly by the former Harvard professor Tuesday for botching basic facts and accusing her of lying. Warren, appointed by President Barack Obama to implement the consumer watchdog mandated by last year’s Dodd-Frank financial reform law, testified at a House Oversight subcommittee hearing dubbed “Who’s Watching the Watchmen?” But those overseers seemed to lack the basic facts about the new agency they were trying to oversee, with the hearing dissolving at the end in a remarkable dispute over how long Warren was supposed to testify. (SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO) Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) betrayed the first misunderstanding, quizzing Warren on why people getting hired at the CFPB earned better salaries than the average government employee. Warren eventually noted that federal financial regulators are usually paid better (but not very well compared to the people they regulate). Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) mistakenly thought the CFPB was unique among financial regulators in having a leader with a five-year term and in not being subject to annual congressional appropriations — neither of which is true. “I don’t believe anyone else in history has had that period of time as an appointment,” Guinta contended of the five-year term. “Congressman, I think many terms are five-year terms,” Warren answered, pointing out that the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had just finished such a term. Guinta then suggested that the agencies Warren compared to the CFPB actually had more oversight from Congress through annual appropriations. “Those entities I think are at the discretion of Congress,” Guinta argued. “There’s an oversight process through appropriations — you’re excluded from that.” “No, Congressman, I’m sorry,” Warren answered. “There is no banking regulator who is subject to the political process or to appropriations.” Regulators such as the FDIC and others take fees from financial institutions for their budgets. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) grilled Warren on whether the bureau would make public the complaints it gets. She answered that the complaint issue was a work in progress, but that at the very least, there was progress in creating a system for large credit card companies. “Are any of the complaints public?” Gowdy demanded. “Congressman, we don’t have any complaints yet,” Warren said of the still-nascent agency. “What we’re trying to do is build the system.” Gowdy also seemed to think that Warren had written the Dodd-Frank law, and he was determined to know what Warren meant by defining “abusive” practices as something that “materially interferes” with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or a condition. “That suggests to me that some interferences are immaterial. Is that what you meant by that?” he asked a momentarily perplexed-looking Warren. “Congressman, I believe the language you are quoting is out of the Dodd-Frank act,” she said. “This is the language that Congress has adopted.” Still, Gowdy insisted on her answer, although the definitions and regulations required by the law are still being written. “You don’t want me standing here shooting from the hip about how I might want to interpret individual language,” she said. Several members raised the question of the new agency’s budget, which unlike any other regulator is capped by law at nearly $600 million. So Warren offered up the budget for the CFPB’s first two years: $143 million for the rest of 2011 and $329 million for 2012. Republicans have cast the consumer protection bureau as a huge new agency with powers beyond anything that exists currently, arguing it’s free from any outside restraints to punish financial firms at whim. They have offered legislation to turn it into a commission, make it easier for other federal agencies to overrule it and delay its start. But Warren countered that the oversight and restrictions on the new bureau were “unprecedented.” “The bureau is the only bank regulator whose rules can be overruled by a council made up of other federal agencies,” Warren said. The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), began the proceedings by suggesting Warren had lied to the committee in a previous hearing that had questioned the CFPB’s role in offering advice to state attorneys general negotiating a settlement with abusive mortgage servicers. At the time, Warren said she was proud her agency had been able to help, at the request of the treasury secretary. But McHenry brought up the memo again, suggesting it showed that she hid a larger role in the negotiations from Congress. “This is our job, and we’re trying to do our job, to be helpful to other agencies, and to help those agencies to hold those who break the law accountable,” Warren said, repeating that she was proud of the work. The exchange prompted Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) to say he was sorry. “I apologize to the witness for the rude and disrespectful behavior of the chair,” Yarmuth told Warren. “The questioning of your veracity when there is documented evidence that you are being totally truthful indicates to me that this hearing is all about impugning you because people are afraid of you.” But perhaps the ugliest moment in the contentions sessions came at the end, when Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, pointed out that based on the emails his staff had gotten, McHenry was keeping Warren later than an agreed 2:15 p.m. ending time. The session had been moved repeatedly, with the timing changing as late as Tuesday morning. But McHenry insisted there had been no agreement, even though he, the subcommittee members and Warren all arrived there an hour early. “I’m not trying to cause you problems, Ms. Warren,” McHenry said. “You are causing problems,” Warren answered. “We had an agreement for a later hearing. Your staff asked us to move around so that we had to change everything on my schedule to try to accommodate your time …” “We agreed that I would be out of here at 2:15 because there are other things now scheduled at 2:30,” she said. “That was a request, ” McHenry snapped. “Congressmen, you told us one thing,” Warren responded “I did not tell you anything,” he shot back, before adding to audible gasps in the hearing room: “You’re making this up, Ms. Warren. This is not the case.” A shocked Cummings intervened, saying: “You just accused the lady of lying. I think you need to clear this up with your staff.” Cummings noted the time changes in the hearing, and a CFPB source later confirmed to Huffington Post that there had been a specific agreement. McHenry later felt no apology was warranted, and slammed Warren in a statement, saying she had refused to answer all questions because two members had not had a chance with her. “Committee staff worked diligently to accommodate Ms. Warren’s schedule,” McHenry said. “I was shocked by Ms. Warren’s blatant sense of entitlement,” he added. “She was apparently under the assumption that she could dictate a one-hour time limit for her testimony to Congress and that we were there at her behest instead of the other way around. This is just further example of her disregard for congressional oversight.” WATCH :

Read the full article →

Source: Microsoft Nears $8.5 Billion Deal To Buy Skype

May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011 4:07:18 AM By Nadia Damouni NEW YORK (Reuters) – Microsoft Corp is close to buying web video conferencing service Skype Technologies for $8.5 billion including debt, a source familiar with the situation said, in a deal which would rank as the biggest for the software company. A deal is expected to be announced as early as Tuesday morning, the source said. The source declined to be named because the talks are not public. Microsoft and Skype declined comment. Skype, which had delayed plans for an initial public offering, had recently been looking at other options. Facebook and Google Inc were separately considering a tie-up with Skype, two sources with direct knowledge of the discussions previously told Reuters. Google had held early talks for a joint venture with Skype, the second source said. A source said at the time such a deal could value Skype at $3 billion to $4 billion — less than the value put on it by Microsoft’s interest. Skype’s planned IPO had been expected to raise about $1 billion, several other sources said at the time. Skype was formed in 2003. Ebay Inc bought it in 2005 for $3.1 billion. In 2009, eBay sold a majority stake in Skype to an investor group that included Silver Lake, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Andreessen Horowitz for $1.9 billion in cash and a $125 million note. EBay retained about a third of the company. Last year, Skype had about 124 million connected users every month by the end of June. But 8.1 million were paying customers, using Skype to make calls to traditional phones at discounted rates. A deal would be Microsoft’s biggest acquisition if it goes ahead, exceeding the $6 billion it paid for online ad agency aQuantive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are advising Skype, the source said. Microsoft is not using advisers, the source said. Earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported news of the potential deal. (Additional reporting and writing by Megan Davies; Additional reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Anshuman Daga) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Ron Gitter: Lending a Hand to Lenders: How to Speed Up the Closing Process

May 6, 2011

At a co-op closing this week, where I represented the sellers by power of attorney, I sat across from the buyer’s counsel, who dutifully ground through the loan documents with his client, a first-time home buyer. As I checked my Blackberry to pass the time, I listened to the attorney describe in mind-numbing detail, page after page of the bank’s documents, pausing to get his client’s signature after each explanation was completed. All around the closing table, folks who have watched this drill on hundreds of occasions, do what’s always done at every closing… wait. Rethinking the Loan Process At that closing, the bank’s attorney stated the “golden rule” of lending: “He who brings the gold, makes the rules.” The crowd chuckled. That being said, the process by which a bank completes the loan documentation at the closing is about as up to date as applying a wax seal. Each bank has a slightly different set of documents, based upon whether or not the loan will be sold immediately after closing to Fannie, Freddie or to an investor. Basically, the documents are similar: a note, a security agreement or mortgage (depending upon whether it is a co-op or condo), a HUD Settlement Statement, and numerous other documents which are either required by law (as revised by recent Federal legislation and rule making) or by the bank’s own lending policies. With all due respect to those charged with the responsibility of attending to the bank’s closing details, the process consumes an excessive amount of time. There is no reason why a majority of the loan documents, with the exception of the note and security documents, can’t be signed at application or upon issuance of the loan commitment. Why Signing Before Closing is a Better Idea Although efforts are being made to educate and to protect the consumer from nefarious lenders and their minions, a closing, with its time limitations, is not exactly the best place to start explaining the implications of the loan documents. Most purchasers are in a daze at the big finale and really don’t comprehend the significance of each piece of paper which is briefly described to them before execution. Your typical future homeowner is thinking about the ton of money he or she is about to spend, or the costly renovations, or the move-in date, or whether it’s the right decision in the first place. You get the picture. Understanding the “name affidavit” or some other boilerplate document is not at the top of the list. It would clearly be in the consumer’s best interest to have that pile of documents in advance of the closing, so there would be a real opportunity to understand exactly what is being signed. In addition to speeding up the closing geometrically, the consumer would be better protected from signing a document he or she truly doesn’t understand — unfortunately, an occurrence at each and every closing. When I posed this suggestion at the closing table, after a few half-hearted attempts at telling me why it wouldn’t work, the bank attorney finally said, “Are you trying to take away my job?’ Well, actually, just trying to make it significantly easier. Business as Usual A closing represents the culmination of the efforts of a number of people: the attorneys, the brokers, the bank and its counsel, the managing agent, and of course, the seller and purchaser. Those involved in the process understand that a certain amount of time will be required to get to the finish line: that being the delivery of checks in exchange for ownership of the property. In the digitized world we live in today, however, a closing takes way too long and needs to be modernized. Lenders are not the only time-wasting culprits, but expediting the review and execution of loan documents would be a great place to start. On to the Next One The real estate economy thrives on closings. When handled the right way by all concerned, it represents the best efforts of the professionals, good feelings on both sides and the ultimate “win win” scenario. But there’s room for significant improvement in the time it takes to get to the handshakes.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Let Trade BE Trade

May 6, 2011

Since China’s admission into the World Trade Organization we have been packing up our factories and sending them over there. We have been buying so many things made in China, but they have not been buying very many things made here, and the resulting “trade deficit” has gotten worse year after year. Everyone is afraid of what China might do with all those trillion$ in US Bonds they have accumulated. We are told to be afraid, that we need to cut Medicare and Social Security and unemployment benefits and all the other things We, the People do for each other, and learn to be poor. There is a better way to solve the problem: let trade BE trade. Trade Should BE Trade Trade is supposed to be about trading . It is not supposed to just be a scheme to drive wages and living standards down by packing up factories and moving them across borders. It is not supposed to be “take a pay cut and a cut in benefits or we’ll move your job.” It is not supposed to be “well, we have something called globalization now so everyone should expect to be poorer and poorer every year.” Trade is supposed to be we buy what they make and they use the money we pay them to buy things we make. And then we use the money they paid us to buy things made there. And then they use the money we paid them to buy things made here. It is supposed to go on like that, and everyone does better and better. Better and better, not poorer and poorer. Let Me Take Your Order, Please So here is an idea for next week’s US-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue . Last year we “raised issues” and signed various memorandums of understanding but nothing changed. This time we have to stop putting off what has to be done. This time, let’s tell China that from now on trade will be trade. Here is what I mean: When the meeting begins Secretaries Clinton (State) and Geithner (Treasury) and Locke (Commerce) should slide a big stack of order forms across the table and say, “Your turn. Let us take your orders now, please.” That is what China can do with all of those US Bonds they have been accumulating. They can start trading , which means buying things from us . And we should say that those things should be things , not companies or farms or real estate or more factories. Our government should make it clear that it is their turn. It is time for trade to BE trade. And if not, we will put a big tariff on goods made in China until it is. Conditions We need to put a few conditions on the deal. Just like they do. They have not been trading with us, they have been seizing the means of production. There is a long list of schemes and manipulations and conditions China uses to rig the game, and it is time to stop this nonsense. The main unfair tactics China uses to its advantage : 1) Currency manipulation. China “pegs” its currency at a very low, or “weak” rate, so goods from China cost up to 40% less than they otherwise should. 2) Labor-rights suppression, which has lowered manufacturing wages of Chinese workers by 47% to 86%. 3) Massive direct government subsidization of export production in many key industries. 4) Environmental degradation that ends up affecting all of us. 5) Intellectual property theft and piracy, which mean that American products that could be sold are stolen instead. 6) A number of policies that block U.S. firms from market access. It is necessary to bring their currency to market rates, but this is not all that must be done to bring trade into balance. It helps; it doesn’t fix it. Do What They Do In our scenario our administration has handed a stack of order forms to the Chinese delegation, and said, “We’re ready to take your order now.” Tell them the deal for cashing in those bonds — and continuing to sell to us without big tariffs — is that China has to actually trade with us, and spend all of those accumulated bonds on goods made here. (I guess if they can tell Social Security recipients that their bonds have been spent they can set conditions on China cashing in theirs… right?) We don’t make that here anymore, you say? Well, here is a solution to that, too. We can just do what they do . We can say, you have to build a plant here that does that. And you have to “partner” with an American company before you can even do that. And you have to transfer your technology to that company. And after a few years your company goes away and the factory and the technology and the market will be ours. Believe it or not, that is what they say to our companies, and for far too long our government has let them get away with that. So along with the stack of order forms, they can tell China that we are going to start doing what they do. Go down the above list, point by point, and just do what they do. Leave out the labor-suppression and environmental degradation parts. We Can’t Just Go Back To The Old Way There are huge interests here and in China who have done very well because of the “trade” policies of recent years. With the economic crisis heading into the past they are pushing very hard to just go back to the way things were. Of course they are. And they are very, very powerful. The Chamber of Commerce runs hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign ads urging us to just go back to doing the things that brought them so much wealth and power. In China those who accumulated great wealth and power from these schemes are fighting hard to just keep it going. The imbalances have been just great for them, and they use the resulting wealth and power to push for more. But the resulting imbalances have been terrible for everyone else in the world . The imbalances have drained wealth and power from everyone else in the world. Can everyone else in the world overcome this or are we all helpless against the onslaught? Or do we have to wait for the next crisis to completely destroy everything and rebuild from there? This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Abebe Aemro Selassie: Confessions of a Dismal Scientist — Africa’s Resilience

May 3, 2011

Like many economists, I tend to fear the worst. I have witnessed phenomenal changes for the better in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 odd years. Part of me still worries that this trajectory will not endure. But, the more I see of the region’s economic performance and outlook , the more I’m changing my tune. Old anxieties set aside Until my latest source for anxiety took hold a few months ago (more on this in a moment), I’d worried about the impact of the global financial crisis on sub-Saharan Africa. The crisis hit just as many countries in the region were starting to enjoy a hard-earned period of economic growth, their best since at least the 1970s. I did not want this to be derailed by the crisis. Previous global economic slowdowns were unkind to the region. While other regions tended to recover quickly, recoveries in sub-Saharan Africa tended to be more protracted, looking more U- or even L-shaped. So, in the face of the worst period for the global economy in two-generations, what chance did the still fragile economies have? However, it soon became clear that this time would be different. And in fact, my initial fears were unfounded. This time the region’s recovery has been more V-shaped. Credit for that goes, in large part, to policymakers in the region. Good macroeconomic policies in many more countries the years before the crisis put them in good stead to weather the crisis relatively well. This allowed them to adopt strong counter-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies. And, looking ahead, the recovery to pre-crisis growth rates is well underway in most countries. As we report in our latest Regional Economic Outlook , output in sub-Saharan Africa looks set to expand by around 5½ this year and 6 percent in 2012. To be sure, the crisis has caused considerable dislocation. The 1 million or so jobs lost in South Africa are a case in point. Elsewhere, progress towards the poverty reduction Millennium Development Goal has also been delayed. But it could also have been much worse. In the face of the largest shock to the global economy, many sub-Saharan African countries have shown surprising resilience. Tackling worries My latest worry is the recent sharp increase in food and fuel prices on world markets. When food prices spiked in 2008, there was a prompt and pronounced increase in local prices in most African countries. So far, this time, we have seen a more diverse picture. In a number of countries, strong harvests have helped in limiting increases in local food price. But, in many other countries, prices have started to increase sharply. This will be particularly harmful for the urban poor and landless rural households. The surge in fuel prices will also test the resilience that the region has exhibited in recent years. For the region’s 37 oil importing countries, it will imply higher oil import costs, and higher fiscal deficits where the pass-through of international price to domestic price is delayed. And, across the region, it will imply higher inflation. To help minimize the dislocation that this shock may entail, countries should consider a two-pronged policy response: Wherever food price increases are pronounced, governments should consider targeted interventions–providing the poorest families with transfers from the budget or, less directly, by subsidizing food items they consume. In the case of fuel prices, however, we recommend that local prices should adjust in line with international prices. Fuel price subsidies tend to be highly regressive–the bulk of the benefits go to the richest households–and very costly. So, once again, I might fear the worst. But, witnessing how countries handled the global financial crisis gives me hope–hope that the appropriate policies will be adopted and will be as effective this time too. And that gives this dismal scientist cause for optimism. From iMFdirect blog

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: Ten Ways To Optimize Your Investor Pitch Time

April 29, 2011

The average length of a funding pitch to angel investors is 10 minutes. Even if you have booked an hour with a VC, you should plan to talk only for the first 15 minutes. The biggest complaint I hear from investors is that startup founders often talk way too long, and neglect to cover the most relevant points. Or they get sidetracked by a technical glitch due to poor preparation. If you start by pitching your extended life story, that’s the wrong point. Equally bad is an extended pitch on your new disruptive technology. Investors are more interested in your solution and your business, rather than your technology. Here are some tips on the right approach and the right points to hit: Match your material to the time allotted. If you have 10 minutes, that means no more than 10 slides. Then match your pace to cover all the material. I’ve seen several presentations that never moved past the first slide before running out of time. An obvious effort to keep talking after the time limit won’t save your day with investors. Remember you are pitching to investors, not customers. Some entrepreneurs seem to think that their product pitch is also their investor pitch. I outlined what investors expect to see in an earlier article (” Ten Slides Make a Killer Investor Presentation “). These are tuned to the 10-minute limit, but are just as adequate if the investor gives you an hour. Check the setup and set the stage. If the projector doesn’t work, or won’t connect to your laptop, you are the one that loses. Have at least one backup plan, such as copies of your slides to hand out and discuss, in case all else fails. The first words out of your mouth should be “Can everyone hear me and read the screen?” Research your audience before presenting. The most respected presenters are the ones who have done the research before hand to know who is in the audience, and have tailored their message to these interests. If you know only a few people in the audience, acknowledge them, and convince the others that this is not a random cold call for you. Dress appropriately and professionally. It’s always better to be over-dressed than under-dressed. Business casual is the standard. Remember that most investors are from a generation where faded and torn jeans were on the wrong side of success in business. Let the top person do all the talking. Tag team shows don’t work in short venues. More importantly, investors want to see and hear the top guy — typically the founder or CEO. They will be judging his aptitude, his character and his passion. Others can be present for effect, but deferrals to team members for answers are a sign of weakness. First, get their attention with your elevator pitch. Start with the problem and your solution. These are your hooks, and they better be covered in the first 30 seconds. State your value proposition, and what specifically you are offering to whom. Skip the acronyms, history of the company and the colorful autobiography. Lead with facts, but skip the details. Skip the generic marketing phrases like more user friendly, massive opportunity, and paradigm shifting. “According to Gartner, the opportunity is 100 million by 2015, with 12% compounded growth.” Investors don’t need to know the implementation details of your patent or customer support plan. Don’t forget to ask for the order. How much money do you need, and what percent of your company are you willing give up for that amount? If you want investor interest, the business parameters of a deal should be presented as clearly as the product parameters. Close by asking for questions and promising follow-up. Acknowledging feedback and actually listening for ways to improve will always lead to a positive impression. You should answer questions with data if you have it, but avoid defensive responses in favor of a promise to follow-up after the meeting. Most importantly, don’t forget to practice, practice, practice. Just because you have given a thousand pitches in your life, don’t assume you can finesse this one by reading the bullet points in real time from the slides that your team put together for you. You need to be totally familiar and comfortable with your pitch to give it effectively. Forget the theory that you can “rise to the occasion” and impress everyone with your dynamic speaking ability. If you are pitching the wrong point in the wrong way, the occasion will be more the demise than the rise of your dream.

Read the full article →

Vivian Diller, Ph.D.: Boomers Supporting Boomerang Children: A Positive Trend?

April 23, 2011

When your grown-up kids drop by to visit, do they still come with bags of laundry? How often do they leave with bags of leftovers — and maybe even a bit of cash — alongside their neatly folded, clean clothes? According to a recent Reuters report , there are many Baby Boomer parents in this country who are supporting their adult kids in lots of ways, with moms being the go-to person 60 percent of the time when offspring run into economic problems. The report was based on an online survey in Florida conducted by a research firm called Kitchen’s Group. They found that “of women with children over age 18, nine percent said they had adult children living back home for indefinite periods. Twelve percent were primarily responsible for their adult child or children’s financial well-being and 31 percent said they had children who returned home, relied on them but expected to become independent.” Although parents are not legally obliged to support children over the age of 18 (and in years past, few parents did), and although 86 percent of the Boomer moms in the survey were financially independent by the time they were 25 years old, it is clear that many parents today will do what they can to help their adult children. AARP confirms this new trend, saying the stats from the smaller Florida survey are in line with their own larger ones, which have shown that 69 percent of their members currently provide some level of financial support to their adult children. So what are the reasons behind this cultural shift? Is it a positive trend indicating that more young adults feel free to seek support from their parents as they struggle to establish themselves in their careers? Does it suggest greater closeness between moms and their kids, a kind of intimacy that was less common in previous generations? Or is it less positive, indicating an increasing over-dependence by children on their parents and vice versa? Perhaps, more worrisome, does it reflect a reluctance among 20-somethings to stand on their own two feet, resulting in a culturally induced laziness enabled by Boomer parents? High Unemployment The most apparent reason for young adults taking longer to become financially independent is clearly the current state of our economy. The Millennial generation reached their 20s just as the stock market crashed and a global economic downturn began. They entered the workforce as unemployment was rising, jobs were being eliminated and a college degree no longer ensured career opportunities. For many, moving back home or asking for financial help gave them the option to pursue unpaid internships, seek further schooling or simply wait out the recession. Although most of these young adults say that they would prefer to live on their own and be financially independent, when their parents offer help, most take it. Some have little choice. Others want to maintain the kind of lifestyle they were used to — or feel entitled to — and hope to avoid taking jobs they believe are beneath them. And parents go to great lengths to help meet their children’s wishes. One financial website writes that “mothers and fathers don’t always plan to be paying for their child’s expenses” after they reach the age of adulthood and find themselves filing for bankruptcy as they accumulate debt trying to help their kids become independent. Empty Nest vs. “Empty Next” Consider, too, that requests for financial help by adult children tap into the already existing ambivalence many Boomer mothers feel about this phase of their lives. Moms who have spent their 20s, 30s and 40s caring for their children feel pulled in opposing directions as their midlife approaches — to hold on or move on. While they may begin preparing for their years ahead without children and even look forward to spending more time on themselves, there continues to be a strong pull to hold on to what is familiar — the full house, even if messy bedrooms and empty fridges are left behind. Instinctively, many Boomer moms yearn for (or can easily be lulled back into) their role as caretaker — the go-to person. Being needed helps some women maintain their sense of purpose just as they face fears about becoming invisible, both physically and emotionally. (I like to call this phase the “empty next,” so that women focus less on losing their nest and more on what can come next; see chapter seven in my book, ” Face It; What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change .”) Supporting children during this time can be viewed by some women as fulfilling, even if at the same time it financially drains them. New Family Structure Then there’s the fact that in the last 20 years, our family structure has become a great deal more child-centered, even as those children become full-fledged adults. No longer is Dad at the head of the table as Mom serves the meals and tells the children to go off to play quietly — think “Father Knows Best” being replaced by the kind of gatherings in “Brothers and Sisters.” Not only is the family dinner a thing of the past, but most mealtimes, weekends and vacations are now oriented around the kids’ activities: soccer practices, ballet classes, tutors, camps and other extra-curricular interests. Often both parents work, some even taking on extra jobs or second mortgages, just to finance their kids’ active and enriched lives. With children growing up assuming that parents will make these kinds of sacrifices, it isn’t surprising that they expect them to continue right through adulthood. Helicopter parenting can lead to overly dependent children who are loathe to give up their hovering but supportive families. We have to ask ourselves whether the wonder years have become the wander years, with too many young people ultimately lost because they were coddled too long. Generational Differences That Boomers remember their young adulthood differently isn’t difficult to understand. These women were raised by post-depression parents who emphasized the importance of financial self-reliance. Boomer women were also pioneers of the feminist movement. Economic success was not only about financial security, but served to ensure that they would avoid the dependency their mothers felt on men. These moms were among the first to break many of the glass ceilings that their Millennial children now take for granted. The result? Young adults today — especially 20-something women — view financial dependence neither as a failure nor as a betrayal of their political beliefs as many of their mothers might have. They are less embarrassed about what they see as a temporary and transitional stage. And since some of these moms wrestle with residual regret having pursued careers while leaving kids at home, indulging them now can meet needs all around — relieving moms of their guilt while helping out their grown children No doubt, the statistics indicating that more Boomer mothers support their adult kids reflect complicated psychological and cultural issues. And this recent Reuter’s report doesn’t even begin to explore the father’s role in this family dynamic. Is it possible that moms are the go-to person, viewed as having a softer touch, while dads are the go-away ones, more likely concerned about money matters? Are fathers hesitant to offer support because they worry that it will foster dysfunctional dependency? Do different attitudes about this issue contribute to marital problems in addition to financial stress at midlife? Maybe more importantly, given that many Baby Boomers have not planned for their own personal and economic futures, this trend raises questions about the long-term impact on how it will all work out in the end — for parents and children alike. We can all benefit from a better understanding of this cultural phenomenon. What do you think about adult children being financially supported by their moms or dads if they are in the position to help? * * * * * Vivian Diller, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in New York City. She has written articles on beauty, aging, media, models and dancers. She serves as a consultant to companies promoting health, beauty and cosmetic products. ” Face It: What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change ” (2010), written with Jill Muir-Sukenick, Ph.D. and edited by Michele Willens, is a psychological guide to help women deal with the emotions brought on by their changing appearances. For more information, please visit www.VivianDiller.com . Continue the conversation by following Dr. Diller on Facebook (at facebook.com/Readfaceit ) and on Twitter.

Read the full article →

Brett Caine: How To ‘Green’ Your Business

April 22, 2011

With Earth Day upon us, sustainability is a term we hear a lot but rarely as it relates to business economics. For most, the perception still remains that sustainability practices are at odds with financial realities. The recent data released by MIT Sloan and Boston Consulting Group in its Sustainability & Innovation Survey of global corporate leaders, certainly supports this point. Less than 9% of SMBs surveyed were classified as “embracers” of sustainable business practices, and only 34% of companies with more than 10,000 employees. However, sustainability is essential to helping today’s companies achieve many of their major business priorities, including attracting and retaining great talent and reducing capital expenses. In honor of Earth Day, I’d like to challenge the view that ‘green’ is incompatible with running a business by sharing the return on investment (ROI) we see achievable with four basic and “modernizing” changes to your business operations. Let’s face it, soaring gas prices and the stress of a challenging economy add a huge burden on today’s business owners. Adopting business practices that are good for your company’s long-term welfare as well as our global community is certainly a step in the right direction — not only on Earth Day, but every day. Here are some suggestions for consideration. Implement a telework program . You couldn’t have a greener commute than from your bedroom to your home office! Did you know that if most of the Americans that were able to telework actually did so just half the time, we could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by about 51 million tons – the equivalent of taking the entire New York state workforce off the roads – and reduce Persian Gulf oil imports by almost half? These are a few of the findings from a new report our company commissioned called State of Telework in the U.S., which was conducted with the Telework Research Network. The report highlights the growth of U.S workers using telework, or workshifting as we call it, as a method of commuting. Happy workers make for a happy business. Flexible working can boost your company morale and be an attractive enticement for potential new recruits. Furthermore, why compromise the quality of the employees you are able to recruit by leashing them to a physical building? With so many amazing, easy-to-use, and affordable online collaboration and business tools, there are countless ways you can ensure remote employees are fully engaged and productive wherever they choose to work. Our research has found that workshifting actually increases productivity by some 27% and it turns out that workshifters are typically 55% more engaged than their office-bound counterparts (statistic courtesy of Right Management). Rethink your office space . In a 2010 Second Quarter “Facilities Snapshot” survey from the International Facility Management Association, sustainability ranked high on managers’ priorities. Almost half increased their sustainability efforts, actively seeking ways to conserve energy and reduce their carbon footprint. With the way we work evolving as the workforce becomes more distributed and mobile, there are key changes you can make to your office design that will go a long way in helping the environment. These changes include reducing square footage, not allocating full-time desk space to employees who workshift, and evaluating lighting, carpeting and air conditioning needs. For further insights please see here . Reduce costs associated with unused physical space and free up funds that can be directed to critical investment opportunities for the company. According to a study we conducted last year, if the 64 million Americans who could workshift did so just half the time, U.S. business would save $124 billion in office costs alone. This is a staggering statistic and one which should make all leaders take note. Increase energy efficiency . By giving employees more flexible work options, you can also install heat and motion detection lighting systems that will decrease energy consumption in the office and save money. Other ways your IT manager can increase energy efficiency is by replacing hard disk drives with solid-state drives in PCs, energy efficient chips in laptops, and switching from Alternating Current power to Direct Current power. Reducing facility operations costs and adding energy-efficient technology can chip away at unnecessary business expenses that could be better applied to investing in your business strategy and growth. For example, it has been calculated that virtualizing 100 servers could save $38,271 in energy costs per year. Use modern waste management techniques . When throwing away that paper coffee cup you picked up on your way into the office or the plastic container your sandwich came in, have you ever stopped to think about how much this adds to landfill? Perhaps it’s time for your company to consider reducing its waste and helping employees to do the same. Recycling paper is great, but there’s a lot more you can do. Composting, for example, not only reduces waste, it also enriches the soil. For small businesses on a budget, the costs of recycling and composting onsite may be a barrier. In that case, look for other companies in the area to start co-op recycling programs with or check into participating in a municipal composting program. From our own experience at Citrix Online, a robust recycling program has allowed our Santa Barbara headquarters to divert 42% of our waste from landfills in 2010; this increased to 58% in Q1 of this year. That’s good for the planet, can help improve sustainability processes and potentially reduce operating costs, not to mention giving employees an opportunity to participate in sustainability causes. And if you need any more evidence, the MIT Sloan and Boston Consulting Group survey mentioned at the beginning of this blog also found that the “embracers” were the highest performing businesses in the study, based on employee engagement, innovation, stakeholder appeal — and, yes, profitability.

Read the full article →

Steve Blank: How Entrepreneurs Can Find A Mentor

April 21, 2011

When the student is ready, the master appears. — Buddhist Proverb Lots of entrepreneurs believe they want a mentor. In fact, they’re actually asking for a teacher or a coach. A mentor relationship is a two-way street. To make it work, you have to bring something to the party. A Question from the Audience Recently, when I was at a conference taking questions from the audience, I got a question that I had never heard before. Someone asked, “How do I get you, or someone like you to become my mentor?” It made me pause (actually cringe). As I gathered my thoughts, I realized that I’ve never thought much about the mentors I had, how I got them, and the difference between mentors, coaches and teachers. Teachers What I do today is teach. At Stanford and Berkeley, I have students, with classes and office hours. For the brief time in the quarter I have students in my class, at worst I impart knowledge to them. At best, I try to help my students to discover and acquire the knowledge themselves. I try to engage them to see the startup world as part of a larger pattern; the lifecycle of how companies are born, grow and die. I attempt to offer them both theory, as well as a methodology, about building early stage ventures. And finally, I have them experience all of this first hand by teaching them theory side-by-side with immersive hands-on using Customer Development to find a business model . At times, the coffees, lunches and phone calls I have with current and past students are also a form of teaching. Most of the time students come with, “Here’s the problem I have. Can you help me?” Usually, I’ll give a direct answer, but sometimes my answer is a question. In both cases, inside or outside the classroom, I consider those activities as teaching. At least for me, mentorship is something quite different. Mentors As an entrepreneur in my 20s and 30s, I was lucky to have four extraordinary mentors, each brilliant in his own field and each a decade or two older than me. Ben Wegbreit taught me how to think, Gordon Bell taught me what to think about, Rob Van Naarden taught me how to think about customers and Allen Michels showed me how to turn thinking into direct, immediate and outrageous action. At this time in my life, I was the world’s biggest pain in the rear, lessons needed to be communicated by baseball bat , yet each one of these people not only put up with me, but also engaged me in a dialog of continual learning . Unlike coaching, there was no specific agenda or goal, but they saw I was competent and open to learning and they cared about me and my long-term development. I’m not sure it was a conscious effort on their part, (I know it wasn’t on mine), but it continued for years, and in some cases (with my partner Ben Wegbreit) for decades. What is interesting in hindsight is that although the relationship continued for a long time, neither of us explicitly acknowledged it. Now I realize that what made these relationships a mentorship is this: I was giving as good as I was getting . While I was learning from them — and their years of experience and expertise — what I was giving back to them was equally important. I was bringing fresh insights to their data. It wasn’t that I was just more up to date on the current technology, markets or trends, it was that I was able to recognize patterns and bring new perspectives to what these very smart people already knew. In hindsight, mentorship is a synergistic relationship. Like every good student/teacher and mentor/mentee relationship, over time the student became the teacher, and this phase of relationship ends. How do I Find a Mentor All this was running through my head as I tried to think of how to answer the question from the audience. Finally I replied, “At least for me, becoming someone’s mentor means a two-way relationship. A mentorship is a back and forth dialog — it’s as much about giving as it is about getting. It’s a much higher-level conversation than just teaching. Think about what can we learn together? How much are you going to bring to the relationship?” If it’s not much, what you really want/need is a teacher, not a mentor. If it’s a specific goal or skill you want to achieve, hire a coach, but if you’re prepared to give as good as you get, then look for a mentor. But never ask. Offer to give. Lessons Learned Teachers, coaches and mentors are each something different. If you want to learn a specific subject find a teacher. If you want to hone specific skills or reach an exact goal hire a coach. If you want to get smarter and better over your career find someone who cares about you enough to be a mentor. Visit Steve Blank’s blog : www.steveblank.com.

Read the full article →

Fortune’s Stanley Bing: How Climate Change Is Screwing With Your Average Business Traveler

April 21, 2011

I don’t care what the Republicans say. Ketchup is not a vegetable. Trees do not destroy the atmosphere. And everywhere you go, the world is melting and freezing in bizarre ways. For most people who work in one location, commute to the office, put in their time and go home, this may present nothing more than a vague sense of weirdness. Like… where did spring go? But for those of us who travel for a living, one of the great pleasures of life has been stripped bare. Nothing is as it should be. And there is, increasingly, no sun. Monday: New York. Cold as a witch’s cheek. Bad wind. Spitting rain. People don’t know what to do. Some are in shirtsleeves, pushing against the hostility of the elements on their way to get a sandwich or grab an illicit smoke. Others are bundled into winter coats, with hats and scarves. The big question seems to be umbrella or no umbrella. My office window looks out over 6th Avenue. About 40% of the public seems to have them. The other 60% are pretending it isn’t raining. You know everybody wishes they were someplace else. The good news for me is that I’m going to LA tomorrow. Tuesday: Los Angeles. Willie the Driver picks me up. He’s got my name on a little sign. “What’s it like here?” I ask him on our way out of the terminal. “It’s cold,” he says. We get outside, and he’s right. It’s April, the middle of a month that was supposed to come in like a lamb. Okay, it’s better than New York, but not much. The sky is gray. The air has a bite to it. Los Angeles is all about its weather. Take away that proud asset and there’s not that much reason to hang around here. Next morning, there’s no sun and it’s pretty clear that we’re not going to get above 65 degrees. Where do you have to go to catch some rays around here? Zihuatanejo? Wednesday: Miami. No, I’m not nuts. I didn’t go all the way back east. I try to stay in the same place at least two days running. It’s kind of a rule I have. I did talk my friend Neff down there, though. It was in the mid-70s and cloudy all day. “Kinda sucks,” he said. Thursday: San Francisco. We have business here, and when the sky is blue and the clouds are high in the sky there’s noplace nicer. I try to get here whenever I can. I’d say since November I’ve seen the sky maybe once for about an hour or two. The rest of the time — fog, spume and relentless, gray oppressive motherhumping rain. Basically the environment of our friends from the north up Seattle way. For what it’s like there, I refer you to this comic from The Oatmeal . It used to be that business travel represented an all-expenses paid way to get out of whatever obnoxious climate you were sick of. Tired of stinky late April in Boston? Isn’t there a meeting someplace warm you absolutely had to attend? Bored with no-snow Baltimore in the midst of a slow week in February? That conference in upstate New York looks pretty good. Except now when you get places, they’re all sort of the same. Rain. Gush. Clouds. Cheesy wind. And walruses floating by on melting ice floes like ancient Eskimos, if one may still use that word. It seems to me that what’s happening is that our climate is moving south. Seattle has Anchorage’s weather. San Francisco has Seattle’s. Los Angeles feels like San Francisco. And for old LA, you have to head down to TJ. Come to think of it, that doesn’t sound too bad right about now. Don’t forget to check out Bing’s new blog at www.stanleybing.com.

Read the full article →

Fortune’s Stanley Bing: Spring Brings Good News for Hedge Funds, Nuclear Power

April 18, 2011

Spring has sprung at long last. It’s been a long, cold winter, and the teeny weeny crocuses (croci?) now popping up their little blue heads in the park are very welcome indeed. So is all the good news that’s apparently bursting forth along with them. First, the Journal informs us this morning that hedge funds are bouncing back with “return-hungry investors pumping up the industry to a size not seen since before the financial crisis laid it low.” I don’t know about you, but I’m liking this news a lot. It means that rich people are once again seizing control of the market and plunging back head first into rampant speculation — taking bigger chances with their money and letting their greed do the talking and the walking. When greed outpaces fear, we know that we’re on the brink of another bubble. May the new bubble last as long as the old one! And may we have the presence of mind to guess a little bit earlier when it will burst! Until then? It’s gonna be fun again in Wall Street for a while. And fun is good. Also just as encouraging is the news that nuclear power is safe again. I work out in a gym in midtown Manhattan, when I am in Manhattan and feeling as fat as Donald Trump’s ostensible wallet. (Did you know he’s VERY, VERY rich? This qualifies him to be the Republican nominee for p resident more than Mitt Romney, or so he told the Tea Party convention yesterday.) Most of the time, I get to the gym around noon. Like everyplace else in America, there is a TV bolted to the ceiling in the locker room. Gotta have TV on all the time. Gotta have electronic impulses pumped into our brains, all… the… time. In airports, it’s Headline News. In the gym, for some reason, it’s cable finance. The lunchtime show. Blah blah blah yamma yamma yamma har de har har ding ding ding. Cable finance. You can’t escape the voice of a television set, of course. You can try. But you will fail. It seeps in. And lately, it seems to me that every couple of days here comes some guy in a suit and a smile talking about how the nuclear power industry is going to be just fine here in the U.S. because everything is just fine with our nuclear plants and nothing like the Japan thing could possibly happen here. We’re better prepared, it seems. We have stopgaps and safeguards and investors are once again sniffing around the edges of the nuclear biz, and that’s another thing that’s back to normal and a-OK. I saw it on TV. The first time I saw it, I thought “oh, come on.” The next time I saw it, I thought, “Hey, these lobbyists for nuclear power are out in frickin’ droves.” The most recent time I saw it I said, “Thank goodness we have all those safeguards and stopgaps.” I guess the next time I see it I’ll think, “I should really bulk up on nuclear stocks.” And why not, really. It’s spring. Optimism rules.

Read the full article →

Judge: Citgo Doesn’t Have To Pay For Cleanup Of Third-Largest Oil Spill In U.S. Waters

April 15, 2011

PHILADELPHIA — Citgo does not have to pay $177 million in cleanup costs stemming from the massive 2004 spill of crude oil from a tanker nearing its dock on the Delaware River, a federal judge has ruled. The judge cleared Citgo of liability in the third-largest oil spill in U.S. waters, which occurred when the single-hull Greek tanker struck a rusty anchor long submerged in the riverbed. Nearly 265,000 barrels of heavy crude oil gushed out as the tanker neared the Citgo dock in Paulsboro, N.J., near Philadelphia, after a six-day journey from Venezuela. The spill hampered shipping and polluted more than 45 miles of shoreline in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. At the time, it ranked as the second-worst oil spill in U.S. waters. The total bill for the cleanup topped $267 million. The lawsuit involved efforts by the U.S. government and Frescati Shipping Co., which owned the Athos I, to try to recover their costs from Citgo. Frescati sought about $90 million and the U.S. government $87 million. Frescati argued in part that Citgo had a duty to maintain the area around its dock. However, Senior U.S. Judge John P. Fullam rejected their claims, blaming the spill on the person who abandoned the anchor. That person’s identity remains unknown because the portion of the anchor that contains identifying marks was broken off. “There is no evidence that any party to this litigation – Frescati, (Citgo) or the government – knew or had reason to believe that the anchor was in the river, although it is well-known that all sorts of objects that present a potential danger to navigation lurk beneath the surface of the waters,” Fullam wrote Tuesday. The Athos I had traveled 1,900 miles after picking up its Venezuelan crude and was 900 feet from the Citgo asphalt refinery’s dock on Nov. 26, 2004, when it started to list. Evidence at the 41-day bench trial showed the anchor had been submerged in approximately the same spot since at least 2001, when it appeared in a scan of the riverbed. Fullam said Citgo had no responsibility to maintain the site, which was in a busy public waterway. “Although the docking pilot was aboard the Athos I, the ship was in an area of the anchorage open for the passage of all ships, not an area used exclusively, or even primarily, by vessels docking at the Paulsboro refinery,” Fullam wrote. Rich Whelan, a lead lawyer for Citgo, said the ruling confirms that marine terminal operators are not liable for the maintenance of public waterways. “We think it’s an important decision for marine terminal operators, because the judge limited their responsibility to the immediate berth or dock area, and refused to extend the responsibility into public waters,” Whelan told The Associated Press. A lawyer representing the shipping company in the case did not immediately return a message late Thursday. Under laws in place at the time, the ship owner’s liability for the cleanup was limited to $45 million. Frescati, in its lawsuit, said it paid $35 million in related interest and $10 million in accident-related damages, for the $90 million total. The Coast Guard assumed much of the additional cost. The Justice Department, whose maritime lawyers pursued the government claims at trial, did not immediately return a call for comment. At the time, the Delaware River spill ranked as the second worst in U.S. waters, after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989. The Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last summer has since surpassed it. In its wake, Congress passed a law in 2006 designed to encourage the use of double-hull tankers by tripling fines for single-hull vessels. Proponents of the bill said that 19 of the 20 largest U.S. oil spills from 1990 through 2006 were from ships without double-hulls. The law, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, also requires anyone with knowledge of possible river obstructions to report that to the Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers. Numerous government agencies responded to the spill, with mixed success, given the damage to wildlife and the environment in the three-state area. “The testimony of the witnesses was compelling with regard to the complexity and difficulty of the oil spill response, and that costs were monitored to the best extent possible under the circumstances,” Fullam wrote.

Read the full article →

Obama Team Hopes To Coax Back Online Donors

April 14, 2011

NEW YORK — If the grass-roots energy that fueled President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign proves hard to duplicate as he seeks re-election, so too could the Internet-powered small donor base that helped him shatter all fundraising records. The weak economy, lack of a Democratic primary challenger and no clear front-runner in the Republican field may delay or prevent small donors from opening their wallets, strategists say, forcing a greater dependence on wealthy contributors for a re-election campaign that could cost more than $1 billion. Many Web-based activists also contend that Obama has let them down, from extending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to breaking his pledge to close the U.S. military prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That’s dampened the ardor of many online donors, says Peter Daou, who was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Internet director in her 2008 presidential campaign but now backs Obama. “I will make the unequivocal statement: It will not be what it was,” Daou said. “There’s a sense of promises not kept, too much solicitousness of the Republican position. Many, many people are saying, ‘I’m not going to send him a dollar.’” Obama launches a series of fundraising events this month, beginning Thursday in his hometown of Chicago, before heading to California, New York, Texas and elsewhere. He will mingle with contributors who give as much as $35,800 or as little as $25. “There’s real power at the grass roots that is still there,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said. “Now, obviously, we are contending with a lot of forces out there that are well-heeled.” “I don’t know what the mix will be, but grass roots will be a major part of it,” Axelrod added. “But we have to be prepared to defend ourselves.” The online army that texted and tweeted Obama to victory in 2008 also helped the old-fashioned way. Some 54 percent of Obama’s $750 million haul came in contributions of $200 or less. His record fundraising allowed Obama to become the first presidential candidate to reject federal money in both the primary and general elections. The president’s 2012 re-election effort began last week in an email announcement to supporters. Aides said the campaign received 23,000 contributions in the first two days, 96 percent of which were less than $200. They declined to say how much came later in the week but insisted the early results were positive. “The response we got was much more robust than we anticipated,” Axelrod said. “But we don’t believe in treating our supporters like an ATM machine. We want them to help build the campaign. That comes first.” Persuading online supporters to contribute money is a more labor-intensive effort than simply including a solicitation page on the campaign website. Small donors typically are engaged through web activism, such as signing Internet petitions or watching and emailing videos to friends. They might then attend a local campaign event or two before deciding to make a donation. And grass-roots donors often wait until relatively late to contribute. They were slow to send checks to the Obama campaign through much of 2007, only beginning to engage early the next year when his primary battle with Clinton got under way. They also contributed heavily at the peak of the general election campaign, when Obama faced off against Republican John McCain. Some Obama advisers have played down the notion of a $1 billion fundraising goal, noting that in 2008, Obama raised more than $300 million during the protracted Democratic primary fight alone. With no credible primary challenger, they say, Obama may not be pushed to spend heavily until a Republican rival emerges. Still, advisers concede an overall lack of grass-roots enthusiasm could affect the high-dollar donor base as well. The president acknowledged the diminished excitement in a conference call with supporters last week, saying, “We may not have the exact same newness that we had.” Re-engaging major donors and fundraisers is another challenge the Obama team faces as it ramps up the campaign. Dozens of the campaign “bundlers” who collected checks from big donors in 2008 have been given ambassadorships and other government jobs and are therefore precluded from raising campaign money this time around. Some Wall Street donors, unhappy with the president’s efforts at financial regulation following the 2008 economic collapse, have indicated they may withhold support. And Obama himself will have less time to spend on the fundraising circuit than he did in 2008, as the demands of the presidency consume most of his time. That could make it harder to engage mid- and high-level donors who want to see him at fundraising events and won’t settle for a stand-in. The Obama team also will have to contend with the emergence of independent conservative groups like American Crossroads that are expected to raise and spend heavily to defeat the president. Crossroads and other groups were significant players in the 2010 election after the Supreme Court eased restrictions on political spending by corporations, unions and others. Several Democratic strategists have announced plans to launch their own independent groups to support Obama’s re-election and help Democratic Senate and House candidates in 2012, but those efforts are just starting to take shape. “He’ll need a lot of help from larger donors, but I think they will do very well on their small-donor program too,” said Peter Buttenweiser, a Philadelphia-based Obama bundler. “Once things pick up again, over six to nine months, the Internet will come into play.”

Read the full article →

iMANY Expands Leadership Team With the Appointment of President and Chief Operating Officer

April 12, 2011

PHILADELPHIA, PA–(Marketwire – April 12, 2011) – iMANY, the leading provider of contract performance solutions, announced today an expanded leadership team aimed at accelerating its customer centric growth strategy. Effective immediately, Paul Winn, Chairman of the Board of Directors, will also assume the role of Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Winn held the CEO role previously at the time of the company’s acquisition by LLR Partners. The CEO role had previously been held by P. Kevin Kilroy. Mr. Kilroy is leaving iMANY for personal reasons.

Read the full article →

Commercial Real Estate Surges, Needs Corporate Hiring To Continue

April 12, 2011

First quarter commercial real estate market fundamentals in 2011 continued their improvement over 2010. This will come as no surprise to anyone who understands that commercial real estate demand is derived from activity in the overall economy. As the economy goes, so go commercial real estate fundamentals. When looking at the change in economic indicators outlined below, the continued improvement makes sense. Consider the following: This time…

Read the full article →

Commercial Real Estate Surges, Needs Corporate Hiring To Continue

April 12, 2011

First quarter commercial real estate market fundamentals in 2011 continued their improvement over 2010. This will come as no surprise to anyone who understands that commercial real estate demand is derived from activity in the overall economy. As the economy goes, so go commercial real estate fundamentals. When looking at the change in economic indicators outlined below, the continued improvement makes sense. Consider the following: This time…

Read the full article →

Omer Rosen: How to Deceive a Client Without Really Trying

April 11, 2011

In my first article, ” Legerdemath: Tricks of the Banking Trade ,” I made brief mention of Treasury-rate locks: “Most brazenly, we taught clients phony math that involved settling Treasury-rate locks by referencing Treasury yields rather than prices.” A number of readers expressed doubt that using a settlement method based on Treasury prices was appropriate. What follows is an abridged explanation of a Treasury-rate lock deception. I offer it not in the misguided hope of stamping out abuses in Treasury-rate lock transactions. Rather, I seek to give a detailed example of a certain type of behavior — hoping it carries more weight coming from an ex-insider speaking onymously. There are two basic ways to describe the value of a Treasury bond, either by price or by yield. Price answers a simple question: How much would it cost you to purchase a bond? This price will change over time, in much the same way that the price of a stock changes over time. Playing counterpart, yield expresses the return that will be earned by purchasing this bond at a certain price. It is similar to how one can describe the speed of a car either by the average number of miles per hour it is traveling at or by the time it takes it to travel one mile — if you know one you can solve for the other, and if one goes up the other comes down. To belabor the point, either “1 mph” or “a 60-minute mile” provides you access to the same knowledge about the speed of a car. And, just as traveling at 1 mph allows you to complete a mile in 60 minutes, purchasing a bond at a certain price “allows” you to earn a certain return (i.e. a certain yield) on your investment. Now back to Treasury-rate locks. When a company puts on a Treasury-rate lock, it is putting on a bet that will pay off for the company if Treasury prices go down and go against them if prices go up. I ask that you accept on faith that sometimes this bet, rather than being a gamble, reduces risk and uncertainty for a company. When the time comes to settle this bet, the change in value of the bond must be calculated. This should be a simple matter of subtracting the bond price at the time of settlement from the price agreed to when the rate lock was put on. However, when it comes to bonds, corporate clients do not think in terms of price; they think in terms of yield because yield is expressed in the language of interest rates, the same language companies are familiar with from business concepts such as rates of return and borrowing costs. And so the client is conveniently never shown how to settle based on prices. Instead they are taught a nonsensical and more complicated method called yield settlement. The sole purpose of this settlement method is to trick the client into allowing the bank extra profit. Unaware that they should even take a second look at what they assume is procedural, the client does not question. Whereas price settlement asks, “By how much did Treasury prices change?” yield settlement asks, “By how much did Treasury yields change?” But how does one convert a change in yield (i.e. a change in an interest rate) into a dollar value that can be paid out? The short answer is that one cannot. But why not? If price and yield are both valid ways of expressing the value of a bond, shouldn’t you be able to measure the change in value of a bond by looking at either the change in its price or the change in its yield? Resorting to hyperbole, teaching a client yield-based settlement is akin to selling them on skipping through time. Return to our car analogy. In this analogy, “mph” will play the role of “yield” and “travel time” will play the role of “price.” And, rather than calculating the difference between two bond values, we will calculate the difference in travel time between each of two laps by our car around a 1-mile track: If lap 1 is completed at a speed of 120 mph and lap 2 at a speed of 1 mph, how would you calculate the difference in travel time between the two laps? If you were using yield-settlement logic, you would first imagine a car that speeds up from 1 to 2 mph. The time required to travel a mile would decrease from 60 to 30 minutes — a 30-minute change. Then you would assume that for all 1-mph changes in speed, travel time per mile would also change by 30 minutes. This logic implies that lap 2 would take 3,570 minutes longer to complete than lap 1 ((120 – 1) x 30). Short of a DeLorean and some lightning, this is not possible. For makes and models without a flux capacitor, correctly calculating the decrease in travel time means converting each speed from mph to travel time per mile, then taking the difference between the two travel times. As a 120-mph lap takes 30 seconds to complete and a 1-mph lap takes 60 minutes to complete, the difference in travel time between the two laps would be 59.5 minutes. Similarly, for rate-lock settlements, yields must be converted to prices, with the correct settlement value being the difference between those prices. Yet we at Citigroup, and in my experience our peers at other banks, almost always instructed clients to use the yield-based settlement method. And so a product that is meant to return the difference between two Treasury prices, a matter of elementary subtraction, is perverted for profit. If yields change by very little, this profit does not amount to much. Fortunately, depending on one’s point of view, banks have other tricks for profiting from rate locks and do not rely solely on yield-based settlement. In fact, miseducating clients with yield-based settlement is almost an afterthought, just a bonus that pays off with large movements in yield. And, in behavior that might be considered yet more sinister, sometimes banks had to agree with one another to miseducate clients with yield settlement. This transpired if a client decided to divvy up a single rate-lock transaction, with each bank getting a piece of the deal and each bank knowing that settlement of the rate lock would have to be a coordinated affair. All this mathiness is hidden in plain sight. Some examples of yield settlement can be found online. Or you can just ask a company that put on a rate lock to dig up some trade confirmations and see what settlement methodology was used. There are hundreds, if not thousands, such documents in corporate offices around the country, each one part of an unwarranted transfer of millions of dollars from clients to banks. For a more in-depth treatment of the above song and dance, with explications of the bond math and client interactions, please click here

Read the full article →

L. Randall Wray: The Perfect Fiscal Storm: Causes, Consequences, Solutions

April 1, 2011

Approximately a decade ago I wrote a paper with a similar title, announcing that forces were aligned to produce the perfect fiscal storm. What I was talking about was a budget crisis at the state and local government levels. I had recognized that the economy of the time was in a bubble, driven by what I perceived to be unsustainable deficit spending by the private sector — which had been spending more than its income since 1996. As we now know, I called it too soon — the private sector continued to spend more than its income until 2006. The economy then crashed — a casualty of the excesses. What I had not understood a decade ago was just how depraved Wall Street had become. It kept the debt bubble going through all sorts of lender fraud; we are now living with the aftermath. Still, it is worthwhile to return to the “Goldilocks” period to see why economists and policymakers still get it wrong. As I noted in that earlier paper: It is ironic that on June 29, 1999 the Wall Street Journal ran two long articles, one boasting that government surpluses would wipe out the national debt and add to national saving–and the other scratching its head wondering why private saving had gone negative. The caption to a graph showing personal saving and government deficits/surpluses proclaimed “As the government saves, people spend”. Almost no one at the time (or since!) recognized the necessary relation between these two that is implied by aggregate balance sheets. Since the economic slowdown that began at the end of 2000, the government balance sheet has reversed toward a deficit that reached 3.5% of GDP last quarter, while the private sector’s financial balance improved to a deficit of 1% of GDP. So long as the balance of payments deficit remains in the four-to-five percent of GDP range, a private sector surplus cannot be achieved until the federal budget’s deficit rises beyond 5% of GDP (as we’ll see in a moment, state and local government will continue to run aggregate surpluses, increasing the size of the necessary federal deficit). [I]n recession the private sector normally runs a surplus of at least 3% of GDP; given our trade deficit, this implies the federal budget deficit will rise to 7% or more if a deep recession is in store. At that point, the Wall Street Journal will no doubt chastise: “As the people save, the government spends”, calling for a tighter fiscal stance to increase national saving! Turning to the international sphere, it should be noted that US Goldilocks growth was not unique in its character. [P]ublic sector balances in most of the OECD nations tightened considerably in the past decade–at least in part due to attempts to tighten budgets in line with the Washington Consensus (and for Euroland, in line with the dictates of Maastricht criteria). (Japan, of course, stands out as the glaring exception–it ran large budget surpluses at the end of the 1980s before collapsing into a prolonged recession that wiped out government revenue and resulted in a government deficit of nearly 9% of GDP.) Tighter public balances implied deterioration of private sector balances. Except for the case of nations that could run trade surpluses, the tighter fiscal stances around the world necessarily implied more fragile private sector balances. Indeed, Canada, the UK and Australia all achieved private sector deficits at some point near the beginning of the new millennium.(Source: L. Randall Wray, ” The Perfect Fiscal Storm ” 2002) As we now know, my short-term projections were not too bad, but the medium-term projections were off. The Bush deficit did grow to 5% of GDP, helping the economy to recover. But then the private sector moved right back to huge deficits as lender fraud fueled a real estate boom as well as a consumption boom (financed by home equity loans). See the following chart (thanks to Scott Fullwiler): This chart shows the “mirror image”: a government deficit from 1980 through to the Goldilocks years is the mirror image of the domestic private sector’s surplus plus our current account deficit (shown as a positive number because it reflects a positive capital account balance). During the Clinton years as the government budget moved to surplus, it was the private sector’s deficit that was the mirror image to the budget surplus plus the current account deficit. This mirror image is what the Wall Street Journal had failed to recognize — and what almost no one except MMT-ers and the Levy Economic Institute’s researchers understand. After the financial collapse, the domestic private sector moved sharply to a large surplus (which is what it normally does in recession), the current account deficit fell (as consumers bought fewer imports), and the budget deficit grew mostly because tax revenue collapsed as domestic sales and employment fell. Unfortunately, just as policymakers learned the wrong lessons from the Clinton administration budget surpluses — thinking that the federal budget surpluses were great while they actually were just the flip side to the private sector’s deficit spending — they are now learning the wrong lessons from this crash. They’ve managed to convince themselves that it is all caused by government sector profligacy. Especially, spending on public sector workers. For example, Wisconsin Governor Walker’s attack on workers has been taken on the pretext that state employee wages and pensions have driven the budget into deficit. We all know that is ridiculous. The reality is simple: Wall Street crashed the economy, crashed state revenues, and crashed workers’ pensions. Washington responded with a massive bail-out for Wall Street — perhaps $25 trillion worth. It gave a mere pittance to “Main Street” in its $1 trillion stimulus package. Since the recession manufactured on Wall Street cost the economy a lot more than that, Main Street is not on the road to recovery. No one is projecting that jobs will return for many more years. It is delusional to believe that economic recovery can really get underway until we have added 8 million jobs. In other words, the fiscal storm that killed state budgets is the same fiscal storm that created federal budget deficits. You cannot lose about 8% of GDP (due to spending cuts by households, firms and governments) and over 8 million jobs without negatively impacting government budgets. Tax revenue has collapsed at an historic pace. State governments really do need to balance their budgets, and they really do need tax revenue to finance their spending or to service debt. The federal government, as the sovereign issuer of the currency is in a different situation. I will not go through the MMT approach to sovereign currency spending as all readers here are familiar with that. My point is that states really are facing a funding crisis. The federal government does not face a solvency constraint and it can always afford to buy anything for sale in dollars. Still, as we all know, Washington Beltway insiders have manufactured a fake budget crisis to serve political ends. State spending cuts (or tax increases) will not restore their budgets. Just take a look at the results of austerity in Greece or the UK. Budget-cutting in a downturn does not reduce deficits significantly. The reason is obvious: austerity slows the economy and reduces tax revenue. Art Laffer’s supply siders were onto something, although they mostly got it the wrong way around. Yes, a booming economy will generate a movement toward balanced government budgets. They thought that tax cuts are always the answer to everything — cut tax rates and you get more tax revenue. I would not say that that never works, but it didn’t when Presidents Reagan and Bush tried it. However, if we get the Laffer Curve the right way around, we can use it to explain why austerity in a downturn just makes budget deficits worse. In truth, state budgets will not recover before the economy recovers. And state austerity will just make the economy worse. So, as a Thatcher might say: TINA: there is no alternative — to federal government stimulus, that is. I realize that goes against the deficit hysteria in Washington. But it is the truth. What kind of stimulus makes the most sense? I think we need another trillion dollars, minimum. This can be split equally between aid to the states and extension of the payroll tax holiday. The federal government should provide $500 billion in block grants to the states, on a per capita basis. On the condition that they stop attacking state workers. The funds would be used to replace lost tax revenue — to cover operating expenses (and where possible, to actually increase spending on priority projects). This program would continue until economic growth and job creation reaches established thresholds. Let us say 10 million more jobs or a measured unemployment rate of 4%. The payroll tax holiday would also be expanded, with a moratorium on taxes for both workers and employers until those thresholds are reached. Why penalize job creation with an employment-killing payroll tax? Reward firms for providing jobs by giving them tax relief. Let workers keep more of their hard-earned pay. This is the quickest and best way to give significant tax relief to most Americans. In addition, we need to stop the attacks on unemployment compensation. To be sure, jobs should always be favored over unemployment compensation — but until we get the jobs we must extend the unemployment benefits. Cutting benefits will just prevent the jobs from coming back. These measures are only a first step. We still have a lot of damage to repair — damage caused by Wall Street’s excesses. And we will need to rein-in and prosecute the fraudsters, otherwise they will blow up the economy again. Actually, they are already trying to do that — creating yet another commodities market speculative bubble. It is looking an awful lot like 2006 all over again. However this time, we are down by 8 million jobs and trillions of dollars of household wealth. Wall Street is bubbling up even as the economy as a whole is in the trenches. This bubble will not last long. It is going to crash. That will expose the huge accounting holes in the bank balance sheets. Wall Street will want another 25 trillion dollar bail out. This time, we’ve got to follow Nancy’s dictum: just say no. This post first appeared at New Economic Perspectives .

Read the full article →

Carl Davis: The Millionaire Migration Myth: Don’t Fall for This Anti-Tax Scare Tactic

April 1, 2011

Virtually every state in the country has a tax system that heavily favors the rich. Despite this fact, only a handful of states responded to the revenue slump brought on by the Great Recession with any sort of tax increase on this favored group. What gives? With so many states looking for ways to balance their budgets, why isn’t there more interest in finally making the rich pay their fair share? The answer lies partially in one of the most effective, yet most absurd anti-tax scare tactics to be used in recent memory: the so-called “millionaire migration” epidemic. State lawmakers across the country have heard again and again that wealthy taxpayers will pull up stakes and move in response to just about any progressive state tax increase. In most cases, however, even a cursory look at the facts shows that these fears are unjustified. With tax day nearly upon us once again, let’s take just a moment to make those facts known. In New York, it was a business-backed group called the Partnership for New York City that first began spreading misinformation about the state’s income tax surcharge on the rich. In a February report , the Partnership claimed that “New York’s high taxes risk pushing jobs, tax revenue, and talent to neighboring states. …Since the imposition of New York’s surcharge in 2009, there has been a 9.4% decrease in the state’s taxpayers who are worth $1 million or more, decreasing from 381,786 in 2007 to 345,892 in 2009.” That sounds pretty scary, but the same data used by the Partnership shows that every state in the country saw its millionaire population decline between 2007 and 2009, and that a whopping forty-three states experienced declines exceeding New York’s 9.4 percent drop. Apologies for stating the obvious, but these declines were a predictable result of the recent recession. Making matters worse, the original press release accompanying this data made very clear that the U.S. as a whole saw its millionaire population decline by nearly 14 percent between 2007 and 2009. It’s therefore a little strange, to say the least, that the Partnership would interpret New York’s 9.4 percent drop as providing any evidence whatsoever that could be useful in its crusade against taxing high-income earners. Oregonians also had to listen to their share of uninformed anti-tax nonsense during the course of the last few months — this time coming from pundits living clear on the other side of the country. In December of last year the Wall Street Journal ‘s editorial board suggested that a recent voter-approved income tax increase on upper-income families caused up to 10,000 Oregonians to pack their bags and head to Texas. Their “evidence” in support of this claim? 10,000 fewer taxpayers were affected by the tax increase than the state originally expected. Of course, there’s at least one other perfectly reasonable explanation for why fewer Oregonians would be affected: the recession lowered their incomes enough to bring them beneath the starting point for the new tax brackets (only taxpayers earning more than $125,000 – or $250,000 in the case of married couples — were affected by the tax increase). Unfortunately for the Journal , the data strongly suggest that this is the case. After just a quick glance at the data, my group — the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) — found that while the state’s revenue estimators overestimated the size of Oregon’s “rich” population by roughly 34,000, it also underestimated its middle- and low-income population by more than 60,000. Simply put, some 26,000 more Oregonians filed tax returns than the state originally expected. They just earned less income than usual due to the weak economic climate. What makes this story especially troubling is that, as in New York, there was very clear evidence available refuting the Journal ‘s claims — had anyone there taken the time to look for it. Almost a full week before the Journal ‘s piece was published, the Oregon House Revenue Committee held a hearing in conjunction with the release of the new data at issue. As is usually the case, that hearing gave the state’s revenue estimators an opportunity to offer some very useful context , such as the fact that the 10,000 return discrepancy was due to taxpayers being “driven down the income distribution because [of lower than expected capital gains income], and they [moved] from the affected category to the unaffected categories.” No discussion of millionaire migration would be complete without a look back at the debacle in Maryland. Thanks in no small part to a pair of misleading editorials published by the Wall Street Journal , Maryland’s legislature failed to approve legislation early last year that would have extended its temporary tax bracket on incomes over $1 million. Since then, much of the hubbub surrounding the Maryland “millionaires’ tax” has died down, but the effect that the Journal ‘s misinformation campaign had on shaping the conventional wisdom on “millionaire migration” makes the issue worth revisiting. As in New York and Oregon, the question in Maryland revolved around whether high-income taxpayers were migrating or simply becoming less rich. When the Maryland Comptroller released data showing a roughly 30% drop in millionaire filers between 2007 and 2008 (the year Maryland’s “millionaires’ tax” first took effect), the Journal enthusiastically seized on this figure as proof that the “redistributionists” and “class warriors” had failed in their scheme to “soak the rich.” To its credit, the Journal did exercise a modicum of caution in its first two editorials by reminding its readers that much of this decline was due to the recession, though it continued to insist that the “millionaires’ tax” just had to have something to do with this drop as well. ITEP responded to the Journal in multiple reports and an unpublished letter to the editor explaining that more detailed data, provided by the Comptroller’s office upon request, indeed confirmed that the vast majority of “migrating” millionaires had simply moved to a lower tax bracket. Fast forward to last December when the Journal revived the Maryland migration myth in the context of Oregon. This time, the Journal threw caution to the wind and stated flatly that “one-third of [Maryland's] millionaire households vanished from the tax rolls after [tax] rates went up.” Of course, this flew in the face of its published claim from nine months earlier that: “one-in-eight millionaires who filed a Maryland tax return in 2007 filed no return in 2008.” But that was back before the Journal forgot about the recession. (For the record: even the “one-in-eight” figure was an exaggeration .) In all three of these states — New York, Oregon, and Maryland — the anti-tax crowd ignored a lot of fairly obvious evidence running counter to their claims. Unfortunately, that’s the way it’s been whenever the “millionaire migration” issue has made its way into statehouse debates. Any shred of “evidence,” no matter how meaningless or out of context, has been seized upon by those seeking to construct the anti-tax, vote-with-your-feet narrative they desperately wish was true. With so much bad information floating around, it’s not surprising that most states have been reluctant to eliminate the massive preferences for the wealthy built into their tax systems. But what lawmakers need to know — and what the Wall Street Journal and others have been refusing to tell them — is that once you scratch the surface of the millionaire migration issue, it becomes abundantly clear that the anti-tax side’s claims have no substance. It’s long past time to stop letting the millionaire migration myth get in the way of progressive tax reform.

Read the full article →

Gayle Tzemach Lemmon: Why Do We Think Small When It Comes to Women?

March 28, 2011

We think small when it comes to women. Micro, to be exact. When I first started reporting on women entrepreneurs in conflict and post-conflict zones in 2005, nearly everyone, from IMF officials in their offices to development workers in the field, told me the only women I would find would be “selling cheese by the side of the road.” Women, I was told again and again, did not own the kind of growing businesses that created jobs and economic growth. This, it seemed, was strictly the purview of men. One customs official even joked that they were not sure why I had taken a week-long trip to Afghanistan to interview businesswomen when surely my interviews would all fit into the space of a single afternoon. What I found when I began reporting, however, was that even in the poorest and most traditional countries, women owned businesses that went well beyond the micro. In Rwanda, I met a gas station owner with several workers and a woman selling fruits and vegetables — not on “the side of the road” but rather for export to Belgium twice a week . Her work created jobs for eight people at the time, including her husband, and supported her own and several other adopted children. In Sarajevo, I met a textile entrepreneur with a new factory near the old frontlines whose company selling bed and bath linens employed 20 people, mostly women, who could now afford to send their own children to school. And in Afghanistan, famous for being among the toughest environments for women to thrive, I met a young woman who dared to turn down a well-paying job offer filled with perks from an international aid organization in order to start a business consultancy which she believed would create jobs for herself and many others. “If I go and work with an international agency, they will give me a very high salary, but it is just for me and my family, it will not support other people,” Kamila Sidiqi told me at the time, in 2005. “If I work to start my own company, I will train a lot of people, I will help a lot of people.” The story of the business she built under the Taliban, The Dressmaker of Khair Khana , is now a book recently published by HarperCollins. Sidiqi’s belief in the power of growing businesses to help lift her country out of poverty was shared by the women I met across borders and geographies. Though the context was different, the challenges they faced looked remarkably similar: Finding capital was nearly impossible. Reaching international buyers proved too expensive to make economic sense and their networks paled in comparison to the men they knew when it came to finding new business opportunities. None of that stopped them. Today their tenacity should be matched by an investment in resources to tap their entrepreneurial potential and ease the path to taking small ventures and building them bigger. Small- and medium-sized businesses create jobs and help countries grow. Mentoring the women starting them and creating financial products targeting them would benefit not just their families, but their economies. As it is now, many of the women leading these get stuck using cash from their profits to sustain their businesses, a limitation that hampers their ability to invest and to take on larger contracts, keeping women from joining men in greater numbers among the ranks of small business owners. Already, organizations like Bpeace and Peace Dividend Trust have focused their attention on these businesswomen in nations like El Salvador, Liberia and Afghanistan, helping entrepreneurs unearth market opportunities and learn the skills their growing ventures require. Their work should not be the exception, but instead become the rule as the world moves beyond the micro — and dreams bigger for women. In the past decade, microfinance has won converts worldwide as the best way to lift women out of poverty. Stories of women owning cows, selling flowers, and sewing handicrafts have spread while the recognition of women’s importance as partners in fighting poverty and creating a more stable world has grown. Yet while microfinance is undoubtedly part of the solution, we now risk confusing it with the entire solution when it comes to women. While glorifying the very small, we have ignored the medium, along with the contributions and the struggles facing women worldwide, working to grow new businesses into large businesses.

Read the full article →

Video: Mehrotra Says YouTube Is Home for All Types of Content

March 25, 2011

March 25 (Bloomberg) — Shishir Mehrotra, director of product management for Google Inc.’s YouTube, talks about the company’s strategy to increase advertising revenue and lengthen the time viewers spend on the video website. Mehrotra speaks with Emily Chang and Cory Johnson on “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Federal Reserve Rejects Bank of America’s Proposed Dividend Hike

March 23, 2011

NEW YORK — Bank of America said Wednesday the Federal Reserve has objected to its plan for raising its dividend in the second half of this year, a setback that suggests regulators need to see more evidence that the nation’s largest bank is strong enough to weather another recession. But the bank said in a regulatory filing that it’s been given another opportunity to submit a comprehensive plan to the Fed so that the central bank may reconsider its decision. The Charlotte, N.C., bank expects to resubmit a request to dole out a higher second-half dividend. The bank has paid a penny-per-share quarterly dividend for the last two years. Its last one-cent dividend was declared in January and payable on Friday. The dividend peaked at 64 cents in mid-2008 before being halved to 32 cents later that year. Bank of America shares fell 14 cents, or 1 percent, to $13.74 in pre-market trading. Last week, the Fed cleared the way for major lenders to increase their dividends if they passed “stress tests” to see if they are strong enough to stand up to another economic downturn. Banks had been forced to cut dividends to preserve cash following the financial crisis that peaked in late 2008. It was a condition of the government’s bank bailout package. The Fed said at the time it expects that “some” banks will increase or resume dividend payments, buy back shares or repay government capital, but it didn’t reveal the names or number of banks that are expected to do so. All of the 19 largest banks overseen by the Fed were subject to the tests. By increasing dividend payments, banks may be able to attract new investors, which should lead to more lending. The Fed has said it is taking a “measured and conservative approach” on banks’ dividend requests. The Fed also cleared investment bank Goldman Sachs to buy back all the preferred shares it issued to Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the conglomerate run by billionaire Warren Buffett. Other banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co. and U.S. Bancorp also announced large share repurchases. Citigroup Inc. on Monday said it planned to reinstate a penny-per-share quarterly dividend and announced a reverse stock split, which will lift the company’s stock price and allow more institutional investors to own it. BofA’s stock has lagged its competitors in the last year and has remained relatively flat so far in 2011. Investors have been worried that regulations enacted after the financial crisis will make it difficult for Bank of America to increase profits and grow many of its businesses, especially its credit and debit card business. The bank has warned that it would lose at least $2 billion in annual revenue for a few years in its card business. Last year, in Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan’s first year at the helm, its credit card unit took a $10.4 billion write-down due to new regulations, and its home loan business struggled with fallout from the implosion of the housing bubble. The bank reported a 2010 loss of $3.6 billion. Most of the bank’s problems stem from its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial, which at the time was the country’s largest mortgage company. While the deep slump in the real estate market has hurt all its competitors, Bank of America has been at the center of almost every controversy involving bad home loans. It paid $2.8 billion late last year to the government-owned mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to settle claims the bank sold them defective mortgages. In the fourth quarter, it kept aside $4.1 billion for more bad home loans that it could be forced to buy back from the two government agencies and other investors. It also set aside another $1.5 billion for litigation expenses related to bad mortgages.

Read the full article →

Tony Schwartz: Take Back Control of Your Work (and Your Life)

March 22, 2011

I just got back from the SXSW interactive conference in Austin. I went there to give a talk about fueling sustainable productivity by balancing periods of fully absorbed attention with intermittent renewal. Peering out into that vast hall, I fear I saw the future: a sea of the digital elite hunched over blinking technologies, tweeting and texting as I talked. Here’s what I later learned some of them were saying, all in 140 characters or less: “I’m splitting my attention between @tonyschwartz & tweeting that 2 B gr8 U have to be willing to suffer/practice.” “Tony Schwartz tells SXSW attendees to go to bed earlier. Tough sell.” “How can Tony Schwartz stay sane giving a speech on focusing on task at a time while the audience is on their iPads/iPhones at same time?” I wasn’t so worried about my own sanity — I was only doing one thing at a time, after all — but I was a little concerned about theirs. We’ve truly entered a world of nonstop input and output. So what exactly would it take to seize back control of our lives? We need a series of deliberate practices to counter the powerful forces so accelerating our lives. 1. Just say no. Imagine for a moment that you’re downsizing from a house to an apartment one-third the size. Everything you have seems necessary until you realize it simply won’t fit in your new place. There’s always room for less. You likely already have too much to do, too much information to absorb, and too many choices to make. If so, your challenge is learning to say no far more often — “no” to more projects, more meetings, more emails, more tweets, more Facebook updates, more purchases, more friends, more “likes”, and more fans and followers. Prioritization isn’t just what you want to do, it’s increasingly what you ought not do. What can you delegate and eliminate, take off your plate or put on the back burner in each dimension of your life? If you’re going to take on something new, what are you going to stop doing? How are you going to be more ruthlessly selective? My colleague Scott Belsky refers to this as “curating” your life. Curate comes from the Latin curare, meaning “to care” — in this case for yourself. Think of this as a Not To Do list. 2. Create more space in your brain — and your life. Our working memory can’t hold much information. The first solution, as David Allen spells out in Getting Things Done, is to write down everything that’s on your mind — the more often, the better. The less you’re thinking about at any given moment, the calmer and more receptive you’ll be, and the better you’ll be able to manage whatever arises. We also need to create more space in our days. To make sense of our increasingly complex and demanding world, we need times during the day when we step back, reflect on and metabolize what we’ve just taken in. We need less data and more context, less volume and more depth. That can’t happen if we’re running from one meeting to the next, and emailing, texting and tweeting in every moment in between. Where can you insert purposeful pauses? 3. Do one thing at a time as much as possible. I appreciated having the SXSW audience tweet short bits about my talk to their followers, but while they were tweeting, they were likely missing whatever I said next. Human beings aren’t designed to do two cognitive tasks at the same time (much less three or four). The research is clear that we’re far more efficient when we do activities sequentially rather than simultaneously. We also do higher quality work when we’re singly focused, and remember more of anything we’re trying to learn. 4. Revisit and reevaluate. I’ve kept a journal most of my adult life. In my 20s and 30s, I filled it with anguished evaluation of my life’s ups and downs. Today, thankfully, I use my journal as a place in which to collect ideas when they occur to me. The real value of doing so, I’ve discovered, is periodically revisiting what I’ve written. I do that on plane trips, mostly, because that’s the least interrupted time left in my life. By revisiting ideas, and reevaluating them with a fresh eye, I find the best ones become richer and more layered, and the less good ones naturally fade away. It’s a practice that serves as an antidote to instant action, and allows ideas and projects to ripen so I don’t act on them before their time. 5. Take regular breaks from your technology. The digital devices we all now carry around are stunningly seductive and addictive, providing endless access to instant gratification: tweets and texts, stuff to buy, games to play, apps to add, and constant new information. Our devices are the means by which we get our work done, but they’re also a form of digital crack. If they’re turned on, you’ll almost surely use them and very likely abuse them. Here’s the threshold question: Are there websites you check 10 or 20 or even 30 times a day? Consider treating yourself like a parent does a child. Ruthlessly limit the time you expose yourself to irresistible temptation. While I’m writing this blog, for example, I have my cell phone and email turned off. At 90 minutes, I’ll check back in. The other move I’ve decided to make– and am committed to stick by — is to leave my laptop and phone in the kitchen when I head up to my bedroom at night. I’m convinced I’m better off reading books than I am Google Analytics, and truly relaxing with my wife rather than aimlessly surfing websites. Less is more. Reprinted from HBR.org .

Read the full article →

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson: Fiscal Follies: How Long Can We Procrastinate?

February 21, 2011

There’s no shortage of evidence that humans procrastinate when faced with unpleasant experiences. Most of us know this personally. We’ve put in all-nighters in college or done our taxes on April 15 — or this year , April 18. Procrastination is a common enough failing, but it’s the one thing we really can’t afford when it comes to the federal budget debate. This is a problem that gets more fearsome and tougher to solve the longer we put it off. Yet procrastination is what we’re getting. Or worse, procrastination posing as bold action. President Obama’s budget request offered both spending cuts and tax increases to reduce our deficits by about $1 trillion, but offered little on the long-term problems of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The House Republicans are celebrating their vote in favor of cutting $60 billion in federal spending this year, but given that (a) the deficit is expected to be $1.6 trillion and (b) there’s little chance the Senate and President Obama will go along, it may not amount to much. Meanwhile, the risks of inaction just get higher. Consider this: The bond market could de-friend us. For lo these many years, the United States has been able to spend more than it takes in because investors worldwide have been happy to keep lending to us by buying our Treasury bonds. Given the economic mess in Europe and how dicey things can be in the developing world, the U.S. government is still seen as a good place to park your money. But how long will that last if we can’t get our act together on the budget? The scariest part is that bond crises have a nasty habit of popping up out of the blue–like the iceberg materializing in front of the Titanic . In the terse words of David Brooks , “The bond markets are with you until the second they are against you. When the psychology shifts… the shock will be grievous: national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain.” We are being warned. Sheila Bair heads the FDIC which closes banks when they’re about to go under, so she knows a thing or two about what happens when investors lose confidence. Bair is well-respected, and she’s worried : “Financial markets are already sending disquieting signals,” she recently wrote . She’s not the only one. The big bond rating company Moody’s has also made rumblings that our triple-A bond rating isn’t immutable. We could shell out nearly 5 trillion in interest in the next 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the country will spend about $4.8 trillion on interest payments between now and 2020 . And since the CBO is required to make its projections based on current law, these figures assume that the Bush tax cuts, all of them, will expire at the end of the two-year extension period. Almost no one thinks that will actually happen. In a decade, Medicare costs will top $1 trillion a year. All the budget wonks say health care is the undertow that could drown the budget — and the U.S. economy along with it. In 2010, the country spent $528 billion on Medicare and $280 billion on Medicaid. Together, that’s more than we spent on defense. But with rising health care costs and an aging population, those numbers are set to zoom skyward. By 2020, they will almost double to $1 trillion for Medicare and $458 billion for Medicaid. These numbers are truly fearsome, and no matter what you think of the Obama health plan, at least it included some cuts and cost containment provisions for Medicare. Repeal it without replacing those, and the costs for Medicare will be even higher. 2011 is the time to start. It’s encouraging that there are specific proposals on the table and that the political debate has finally begun. But with elections coming up in 2012–and with straw polls already dominating the news — we don’t have much time before the country goes into its quadrennial “all campaigning all the time” mode. Big national elections are generally not the best times for honest discussions about the budget, and besides everyone is distracted–candidates, journalists, and voters as well. But we still have a few months. We can’t solve the budget problem in that short a time, but if we don’t start, we could lose another two years while the risks continue to mount. Cutting federal spending or raising taxes won’t be pleasant. Local governments will not get money they’re used to getting, and companies and non-profits nationwide will lose government contracts and grants that have, in some cases, been keeping them afloat. There will be layoffs of government workers. The chorus of disapproval greeting President Obama and the Republicans now that they’ve started to get specific on spending cuts shows just how painful and controversial this will be. As for raising taxes, even the smallest uptick is bound to get millions of Americans upset. But there’s simply no way to do this without cutting spending and raising taxes. If we start now, at least we get to decide what to do when. If we wait until the country is up against a bond market crisis or other financial emergency, we’ll have to slash in every direction and raise taxes in one fell swoop. Surely we’re a sensible enough nation to avoid that. So now you can take your pick of advice from two great sources: There’s Lewis Carroll who wrote “‘The time has come’ the Walrus said, ‘to talk of many things.’” That’s true enough here. Or if you’re a boomer, maybe you’d rather go with “The time to hesitate is through ” from Jim Morrison and the Doors. Either way, the message is the same. This time, this year, we simply have to reduce the red ink.

Read the full article →

States Ignored Years Of Warnings On Unemployment Insurance

February 19, 2011

WASHINGTON — State officials had plenty of warning. Over the past three decades, two national commissions and a series of government audits sounded alarms about the dwindling amount of money states were setting aside to pay unemployment insurance to laid-off workers. “Trust Fund Reserves Inadequate,” federal auditors said in a 1988 report. It’s clear now the warnings were pretty much ignored. Instead, states kept whittling away at the trust funds, mostly by cutting unemployment insurance taxes at the behest of the business community. The low balances hastened insolvency when the recession hit, leading about 30 states to borrow $41.5 billion from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits to their growing population of jobless. The ramifications will be felt for years. In the short term, states must find the money to pay interest on the loans. Generally, that involves a special tax on businesses until the loan is repaid. Some states could tap general revenues, making it harder to pay for schools, roads and other state services. In the long term, state will have to their replenish unemployment insurance programs. That typically leads to higher payroll taxes, leaving companies with less money to invest. Past recessions have resulted in insolvencies. Seven states borrowed money in the early 1990s; eight did so as a result of the 2001 recession. But the numbers are much worse this time because of the recession was more severe and the funds already were low when it hit, said Wayne Vroman, an analyst at the Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank based in Washington. The Obama administration this month proposed giving states a waiver on the interest payments due this fall. Down the road, the administration would raise the amount of wages on which companies pay federal unemployment taxes. Many states probably would follow suit as a way of boosting depleted trust funds. Businesses pay a federal and state payroll tax. The federal tax primarily covers administrative costs; the state tax pays for the regular benefits a worker gets when laid off. The Treasury Department manages the trust funds that hold each state’s taxes. Each state decides whether its unemployment fund has enough money. In 2000, total reserves for states and territories came to about $54 billion. That dropped to $38 billion by the end of 2007, just as the recession began. Over the next two years, reserves plummeted to $11.1 billion, lower than at any time in the program’s history when adjusted for inflation, the Government Accountability Office said in its most recent report on the issue. Yet benefits have stayed relatively flat, or declined when compared with average weekly wages. “If you look at it from the employers’ standpoint, they’re not going to want reserves to build up excessively high because then there’s an increasing risk that advocates for benefit expansion would point to the high reserves and say, ‘We can afford to increase benefits,’” said Rich Hobbie, executive director of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. A review of state unemployment insurance programs shows how states weakened their trust funds over the past two decades. In Georgia, lawmakers gave employers a four-year tax holiday from 1999-2003. Employers saved more than $1 billion, but trust fund reserves fell about 40 percent, to $700 million. The state gradually has raised its unemployment insurance taxes since then, but not nearly enough to restore the trust fund to previous levels. The state began borrowing in December 2009. Now it owes Washington about $588 million. Republican Mark Butler, Georgia’s labor commissioner, said his state had one of the lowest unemployment insurance tax rates in the nation when the tax holiday was enacted. “The decision to do this was not really based upon any practical reason. It was based on a political decision, which I think, by all accounts now, we can look back on and say it was the wrong decision,” Butler said. “Now we find ourselves in a situation where we’ve had to borrow money and that puts everyone in a tight situation.” In New Jersey, lawmakers used a combination approach to deplete the trust fund. The Legislature expanded benefits and cut taxes, as well as spending $4.7 billion of trust fund revenue to reimburse hospitals for indigent health care. The money was diverted over a period of about 15 years and helps explain why the state’s trust fund dropped from $3.1 billion in 2000 to $35 million by the end of 2010. The state has had to borrow $1.75 billion from the federal government to keep the program afloat. “It was a real abdication of responsibility and a complete misunderstanding of how you finance an unemployment insurance fund – to make sure you have sufficient money in bad economic times,” said Phillip Kirschner, president of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. “In good economic times you build up your bank account, but in New Jersey, they said, ‘Well, we have all this money, let’s spend it.’” California took its own road to trust fund insolvency. Lawmakers kept payroll tax rates the same, but gradually doubled the maximum weekly benefit paid to laid-off workers to $450. The average benefit now is about $300 and is paid for about 20 weeks. Loree Levy, spokeswoman for the California Employment Development Department, said lawmakers were warned of the consequences. “We testified at legislative hearings that the fund would eventually go broke and would become permanently insolvent if legislation wasn’t passed to increase revenue,” Levy said. California has borrowed $9.8 billion to keep unemployment insurance payments flowing. It owes the federal government an interest payment of $362 million by the end of September. In Michigan, unemployment insurance tax rates declined from 1994 through 2001. The trust fund prospered during those years because of the healthy economy and low unemployment rate. Then the recession arrived and reserves plunged. In response, Michigan lawmakers passed legislation that lowered the amount of wages subject to unemployment taxes from $9,500 to $9,000. They increased the maximum weekly benefit from $300 to $362. The trust fund dropped from $1.2 billion to $112 million over the next four years. In September 2006, Michigan was the first state to begin borrowing from the federal government. Other states held their trust funds purposely low as part of an approach called “pay-as-you-go.” Texas is a nationally recognized leader of this effort. Its philosophy is that, in the long run, it’s better for the economy to keep the maximum level of dollars in the hands of businesses rather than government. Texas had to borrow $1.3 billion in 2009. State officials have no regrets about their policy. “By keeping the minimum in the (trust fund), Texas is able to maximize funds circulating in the Texas economy, allowing for the creation of jobs and stimulation of economic growth,” said Lisa Givens, spokeswoman for the Texas Workforce Commission. The pay-as-you-go approach goes against the findings of a presidential commission that looked into the issue of dwindling trust funds in the mid-1990s. “It would be in the interest of the nation to begin to restore the forward-funding nature of the unemployment insurance system, resulting in a building up of reserves during good economic times and a drawing down of reserves during recessions,” said the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation, which President Bill Clinton appointed. Hobbie, from the association representing state labor agencies, said there’s no way to tell which approach is better over the long haul. He acknowledged that keeping reserves at the minimum in good times goes against one of the original aims of the program – to act as an economic stabilizer in bad times. That’s because businesses are asked to pay more in taxes, which leaves them less money to invest in their company. A survey from Hobbies’ organization found that 35 states raised their state unemployment taxes last year. Hobbie said he suspects that some states allowed reserves to dwindle out of complacency. “I think we just got overconfident and thought we wouldn’t experience the bad recessions we had in, say the mid ’70s, and then this big surprise hit,” he said. ___ Online: Treasury Department accounting of trust funds: http://tinyurl.com/6783qjj Government Accountability Office 1988 report: http://tinyurl.com/5t855fl GAO 2010 report: http://tinyurl.com/69mfc9f National Association of State Workforce Agencies: http://www.workforceatm.org/

Read the full article →

Greenspan On Financial Crisis: ‘Not Bad’

February 18, 2011

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan oversaw policies that contributed to the worst economic catastrophe since the Depression. But the morning after the stock market crashed, he reportedly didn’t feel too bad. Speaking publicly at New York University, Greenspan recounted what was going through his mind one morning in September 2008, after the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped nearly 7 percent. According to Washington Square News : “The morning after we learned of the news,” he said, “I was able to look myself in the mirror and say, ‘Hey, not bad.’” Greenspan kept interest rates low in the decades leading up to the crisis, helping promote first a bubble in technology stocks and then a bubble in real estate assets. With money flowing cheaply, investors scrambled to buy products that later proved dangerously risky. Even when other Federal Reserve officials expressed concern over the fast-moving economy, Greenspan held firm. The former Fed chairman has also been a strong supporter of derivatives , the financial instruments that worsened the financial meltdown. In testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission last year, Greenspan said he was “right 70 percent of the time, but I was wrong 30 percent of the time and there are an awful lot of mistakes in 21 years.” On that morning in September, the full extent of the crisis hadn’t yet unfolded. Few people predicted just how severe the economic fallout would be.

Read the full article →

Trish Kinney: Job Search Technology Not User Friendly to Employers

February 18, 2011

My company recently began a search for two managers and set up a nifty gmail account to house the responses. In a short period of time, hundreds of resumes came pouring in. Our vice president, who wrote and posted the ad, spent hours reviewing the submittals, setting up interviews, and meeting with perspective employees. She sent me her final two candidates, neither of which was suitable. In an emotional meeting, she stated that her workload did not allow her to repeat the frustrating and time consuming process, complained about the quality of the applicants, and seemed nearly certain that one of them was a murder suspect she had seen on the television news. I offered to take over the search for the two managers. Having personally hired hundreds of people over the past 28 years, I approached the task with confidence. By the time I accessed the swelling gmail account, there were 921 responses. It was daunting to make that first click and absolutely overwhelming to consider such a large number of applicants. After my first session, a handful of resumes were saved in a folder and approximately 215 were reviewed and discarded. Hours later, I was down to 700 applicants. I found myself looking for any excuse to avoid the process completely, willing to spend time doing anything but throwing myself into the black hole of click after click on resumes that included air conditioning techs, hospital clerks, cashiers, sushi chefs and journalists. Not one included a cover letter stating why, despite their lack of related experience, they were applying for a community manager position and what special talents they could bring to my company. It was clear that a lot of clicking was going on from their end, utilizing software that allowed their resumes to be blasted to any and every job posting on the site. The old adage about throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks came to mind. Many of the responses were barely in the form of resumes. My favorite so far is: “Worked in a high paced,large volumes of wealthy and distinguished clientel! Professional attititude and conduct is what i am all about, I work very hard and thoroughly ,i am an efficiency expert!I am creatative ,outgoing very articulate, a team player!” Finally I went to my folder and selected one candidate and dialed his number. He was overqualified for the job but his resume was beautifully done and his vast experience was at least indirectly related to our industry. We spoke on the phone for nearly 40 minutes and he was an impressive candidate. I reiterated, as was stated in the ad, that it was an entry level management position with tremendous potential for rapid growth within the company. While I knew he was overqualified, we would have to both agree to take a chance on the other and see if we were a good match. He said he had enjoyed every minute of our discussion and we scheduled an interview at my office. I recklessly stopped looking at the resumes after that, feeling confident I had found my manager. During the interview, I offered the job at the high end of the salary range posted in the ad to which he had responded. He seemed shocked at the number and it completely changed the tone of the interview. It suddenly dawned on me that he had no idea which job he was applying for because he had forwarded his resume so many times by repeated box clicking. For a moment I drifted off in my mind to the days when resumes were received in the US mail with beautifully drafted cover letters and crisp, well organized resumes for consideration or dropped off in person by people dressed in business clothes with briefcases or leather notebooks under their arms. A good response was maybe 30 applicants with direct experience and the hard part was which qualified candidate was the best fit. He asked if he could think about it overnight and promised to get back to me this morning. I think it’s even money as to whether he can even imagine coming to work for that kind of money when he made so much more in a position that no longer exists in today’s economy. All I know is that it seems backwards to me that the employer has to do all the work in the hiring process and the job seekers have only to click, click, click to circulate their resumes anywhere and everywhere, sometimes without even reading the entire job description. It dilutes the process for both sides which is a real shame with unemployment being what it is today. I honestly feel that I would seriously considered any applicant, literally, who takes the time to write a personalized cover letter to my job posting showing at least minimal interest in my needs. But so far, not one resume has included such a letter. What seems perfectly clear to me is that resumes flying around internet space does not a legitimate job search make. A small effort to make yourself stand out to an employer would be worth it. And don’t worry, you won’t have to leave your computer to do it.

Read the full article →

Marty Zwilling: The ‘Big Bang’ Theory Doesn’t Work for Startups

February 18, 2011

The traditional mode of starting a company is to plan a serial process, where you complete only once all the steps, leading to the “big bang” launch of the company. I strongly recommend a dramatic departure from this model, called “planned iteration,” where you assume you won’t get it right the first time. This idea was well articulated by Paul Graham in an old essay, called ” Startups in 13 Sentences ” in which he talked about “making a few people really happy rather than making a lot of people semi-happy.” One of his key points is that “launching teaches you what you should have been building,” and I agree. All you old software development types will recognize the analogy to the traditional two year “waterfall model” of software development, which has been totally replaced with the Agile iterative methodology. Agile assumes and plans for iterative development, where requirements and solutions evolve as more is known and markets change. Don’t mistake this for a license to launch an incomplete or poor quality solution. Your strategy today should be to define and excellently prepare the absolute minimum product that will excite a selected small segment of your intended customers, and roll it out to them – as a Beta, early promotion, or even a give-away. Then you assess feedback, adjust your offering, and iterate until you get it right (have some very satisfied customers). Plan on multiple small launches, with iterations, rather than a big launch. Here are the advantages I see with this approach: Faster time to market. If you launch fast, you can be working with real customers in 4-6 months from your start, rather than 1-2 years. In today’s fast moving marketplace, needs, competitors, and costs change rapidly, so even if you were right, two years later the wave has moved on. Equally likely, your first target was wrong, and you will need to adjust. Get traction before funding. Let’s face reality, the angel or VC funding process now takes 4-6 months of almost dedicated effort and time, and usually fails because you don’t yet have a product or customer. By using a laser focused approach for the first iteration, you may actually produce something and get a customer without funding. Now investors will pay attention, since scale-up funding is less risky and has a time frame. Find customers, partners and channels early. There is nothing like a real customer pipeline to convince you that you need partners and channels, and to convince partners, channels, and investors that you are real. Get out there personally and find that first customer. It will narrow your development focus, and adjust your strategy for you. Spend your time finding renewable sources of customers and iterate. Use social networking to start the wave. Costs are low these days to set up a credible website, do some search engine optimization, start blogging, and start mining the social networks for interest. It won’t cost you your whole funding pot to start some momentum, or to realize that your original strategy needs major tuning. Think about it. Where did Google, eBay, and Facebook come from? They inched their way into public view before the first multi-million dollar funding rounds, and they have never had a big public launch. New product companies in the offline world start one store at a time, or in one geographic area. Big bang product launches are the domain of big enterprises, and you can never match their clout and budget. The biggest advantages you have as a startup are speed and agility. Use them.

Read the full article →

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

February 18, 2011

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

Read the full article →

Ian Fletcher: The Biggest Bubble of All Has Yet to Pop

February 18, 2011

Americans presumably realize by now that living in a bubble economy, while exhilarating as long as the champagne lasts, is not a good move. Therefore it is worth understanding why the biggest bubble of all may be yet to pop. I refer to America’s trade imbalance with the rest of the world. As I explained in a previous post , our trade deficit with the rest of the world means that we must a) borrow money and b) sell existing assets in order to cover the yawning gap between our imports and our exports. And while a rich nation can indeed borrow a huge amount of money and has a lot of assets to sell off, this doesn’t mean Santa has installed an ATM on every street corner. Which is what a lot of people seem to think. Now it used to be that American liberals were the ones traditionally accused of “money-grows-on-trees” thinking. But I’ve noticed something: when it’s convenient to them (i.e., not a matter of cutting social programs they don’t like), American conservatives are now even worse. Let’s take as a case-in-point this recent assertion by Don Boudreaux of the libertarian Cato Institute: Second and most importantly, Mr. Fletcher doesn’t understand what a trade deficit is. An increase in the U.S. trade deficit does not necessarily mean that Americans are borrowing more or are selling off assets. The volume of productive capital assets is not fixed. Foreigners who invest dollars in creating and expanding businesses in America increase America’s capital stock without either putting Americans further in debt or decreasing Americans’ ownership of assets. Given that America is the world’s leading destination for foreign direct investment, it hardly seems plausible that the U.S. trade deficit is evidence of American impoverishment or of inadequate production. Now the key phrase here is, “The volume of productive capital assets is not fixed.” The idea appears to be that because we can always make more assets, there’s nothing wrong with selling them off to foreigners. Sounds logical enough. The problem, though, is that even if you can bake more cookies, selling off the cookies you already have results in your ending up with fewer than you would otherwise have. Maybe you don’t end up with nothing, but your still have fewer cookies than if you hadn’t sold any. The meaning of this analogy is that even if America can increase its stock of capital assets over time (as we obviously can), selling off some of those assets to foreigners still means we own fewer assets. Our net worth is still lower. We are poorer, by basic accounting. We own less. Debt works the same way. Even if America’s capacity to service debt goes up over time (as it does with a growing GDP), assuming debts to foreigners still means that we owe more than we otherwise would. Again, our net worth is lower. Our debit column went up. Now let’s look at the next tenet of bubblethink expressed above, the idea that “foreigners who invest dollars in creating and expanding businesses in America increase America’s capital stock without either putting Americans further in debt or decreasing Americans’ ownership of assets.” There are two problems with this idea. First is that most foreign investment into the United States simply doesn’t fall into this category. For example, of the $260.4 billion invested in 2008, 93 percent went to buying up existing companies, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Thomas Anderson, “Foreign Direct Investment in the United States,” BEA, June 2009, p. 55.) Worse, a huge chunk of foreign investment in the U.S. just goes for Treasury securities, which get recycled, by way of deficit spending, into consumption , not even investment in existing assets. Second, it’s a baseline trick. It is indeed true that if we take our low savings rate as a given and ask whether we would be better off with foreign-financed investment or no investment at all, then foreign-financed investment is better. But our savings rate isn’t a given, it’s a choice , which means that the real choice is between foreign- and domestically-financed investment. Once one frames the problem this way, domestically-financed investment is obviously better because then Americans, rather than foreigners, will own the investments and receive the returns they generate. Developing nations face this problem all the time (and more honestly than we do right now): While it’s certainly nice to have foreigners come and invest in your country, because this creates jobs et cetera, what’s even better is if you have the capacity to invest for yourself. Being able to develop your own country with your own investments, rather than depending upon others, is part of what distinguishes the serious players from the also-rans. The last time America was importing huge amounts of capital was in the 19th century, when we were still a developing nation dependent upon European bankers to pay for building our railroads and the like; as we matured into a major industrial power in our own right, the tide reversed and we exported capital back to Europe to rebuild it, for example, after two world wars. In the 19th century, we borrowed to invest in projects that made us more productive, improved our capital stock, thus we could (and did) pay back the borrowing. Borrowing to consume is quite the opposite. Today, we are selling off our capital stock and damaging our future productivity. The free trade crowd also assumes that the economics of trade takes place in a vacuum. This is where the golden rule applies: He who has the gold makes the rules and controls the key decisions. There are important economic and political consequences. If Washington is under the influence of Wall Street and so-called “American” multinationals, what will our policies look like, what freedom of action will we have as a nation? How does one possess national security when the economic sinews thereof belong to someone else? At some point, all this will come out in the wash. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Read the full article →

Shira Hirschman Weiss: ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Jobless’

February 17, 2011

Last Thursday, the Labor Department released data stating that the number of new unemployment applications is at its lowest since July 2008. While this indicates the economy is picking up speed, the news can either be a beacon of hope or salt rubbed into wounds for the presently unemployed. Faith is in a precarious perch for the religious and jobless. While some become despondent from repeated rejection and thwarted efforts, others cling to faith and turn fervently to prayer. Deirdre McEachern is a career coach who says she sees clients “whose faith has been enhanced and re-affirmed by the job hunt.” One of those clients, Jennifer Bindhammer, was a flight attendant with United in September 2011. “She came to me in early 2002 re-evaluating her life,” explains McEachern. “We worked together for several months and in the process she reconnected strongly with her personal faith. Once she deciphered her life purpose, she felt as if God was opening doors for her — helpful coincidences kept appearing — like the sign she spotted on a subway platform advertising an MBA program.” This literal and figurative ‘sign’ led the flight attendant to pursue her MBA. In the process of contemplating the switch to a corporate profession, Bindhammer — no stranger to the friendly skies — turned to the heavens . “I enjoyed flying and I enjoyed my job, she writes in a testimonial, “It just wasn’t the challenge that I wanted it to be, and realized that I needed to be challenged. When I thought about changing careers, I prayed about it — I actively prayed .” Bindhammer followed her passion, received her MBA and kept praying. She is now working with an international air transport consultancy that focuses on aviation. While the former flight attendant’s faith was reaffirmed, Fiona (not her real name) reflects on how she sunk into a deep depression when she was laid off from a Public Relations start-up during the late 90s “dot bomb” era. She stopped praying and began spending Friday nights at local bars instead of the synagogue. She could have benefitted from an organization like Project Ezrah, had it been around at the time. The North Jersey based organization was founded in 2001 to aid members of the Jewish community (and now helps Jews and non-Jews alike) who were suffering from the hardships of unemployment. Rabbi Yossie Stern, Executive Director of Project Ezrah, has seen individuals like Fiona who have been turned off to the synagogue experience, who are angry with God, and who are depressed about their situation to the point of losing faith. His organization has put together programs to help those who feel despondent. Notably, it developed initiatives to professionally retrain unemployed baby boomers. “When your brother is impoverished, you have to be able to empower him to be self sufficient,” he explains, “The highest form of charity is being able to afford someone a job, to help him achieve the same sense of self-esteem and quality of life that you have.” His organization provides a wide range of services including a popular job board, career counseling services, financial counseling, mental health counseling, job training, and “in the box and out of the box services. We try to provide it all,” Stern says. There is also a LinkedIn group that includes seminars on how to use social networking to find a career and much more. “We empower people to network, which is the best way to find employment.” Fiona eventually found her way back to a public relations career and to the synagogue, but admits that she felt at odds with her faith when things were uncertain: “I didn’t feel it was God’s fault,” she explains, “It was related to a sudden, dark depression, which came about from my unemployment.” And which, she admits, also may have been related to the fact that she was in a bad relationship at the time. “When life is unstable, it contributes to the instability of unemployment.” Rabbi Stern stresses that it is critical that spouses be encouraging and not place blame due to unemployment. He emphasizes that a support system and building of confidence is essential to one’s job hunt. While Fiona received counseling for her depression, she realized she needed to make significant efforts to find a new job. “The Hebrew word Hishtadlut kept flashing through my head,” she says. Hishtadlut means that one must make their own efforts. It relates to the universal concept of “God only helps those who help themselves.” We frequently hear news stories of people who take out billboards on major highways declaring “Hire Me!” While some may cringe, others applaud the bravery of these individuals … Then suddenly, they’re on Oprah. There’s no question that personal efforts need to be extended, that while you may pray for a miracle, divine intervention is a hand reaching across to meet the other hand — that of personal, human intervention. This may be the reason why video producer Richard Lucas is going public with his job hunt: “I’m using my faith to find my next job and blogging about it ,” he tells me, “I’m letting God lead me to new people and places (driving from New Hampshire to Southern California) in the belief that He will lead me to my next job. I’m not there yet, but the journey has just started and I’m only as far as Virginia.” Prior to his big road expedition, Lucas held jobs in radio, television, high tech marketing and sales. He also owned a repair business in Southern California and most recently, a small video production house in New Hampshire. “I couldn’t drum up enough business to get a profit out of the video business so I moved to southern New Hampshire and stayed with my brother for 4 months, looking for work but no joy,” he says. “My plan was to go back to Southern California where there are more video jobs and I have a larger personal network. My faith in God is strong and I believe that on the road trip back to LA, God will show me opportunities along the way. In fact, He did just that at a church in Virginia. I’m staying here now (in VA) for a few days to do video projects while recording segments for a documentary project on miracles.” Lucas says that he believes “God is guiding me to do these things. He will lead me to a new job or even a new career. It may be in Southern California or it or it may be somewhere else. I’m completely walking in my faith here. I’m quite certain that without that faith I would not have the direction and optimism that I currently possess with regard to the future.” Rabbi Stern and other religious leaders applaud this type of optimism. As Stern says, “Everyone in this world gets challenged and there are bumps, the question is ‘how do we deal with the bumps’?” As a clinical psychologist, Dr. Randy Gilchrist is able to make his own observations about faith and unemployment: “From what I have seen, people who are unemployed do tend to go through a definite trial of their faith. Common questions they may ask themselves during that period: ‘I’m a good person, why would God allow this to happen to me?’, ‘Am I being punished’, or ‘What did I do to deserve this?’ (as if God were punishing them personally). In these cases, one’s faith is tried, strained, and sometimes lost if a resolution is not forthcoming. On the other hand, others who have a belief in God that better allows for apparent unfairness tend to do much better in challenging circumstances like job loss and extended unemployment. They may even have their faith strengthened through the experience. In these cases, they may ask themselves an entirely different question, such as, ‘how will this situation strengthen me?’, ‘what better opportunity is God preparing me for’, ‘how will this help me develop character?’, or even, ‘how will this circumstance allow me to better serve God or others?’. ” In other words, Gilchrist feels that different conceptualizations of God and varying extents of belief will largely determine the response, which “could go either way.” Bob Pautke of the Cincinatti, Ohio based Job Search Focus Group (JSFG) which meets in the Hyde Park Community United Methodist Church, says he doesn’t see a loss of faith in members but the opposite: “They are taking the time to better understand their selves and their gifts, bringing them to a stronger faith.” He says he has seen congregants, who are frustrated and seemingly desperate, turn to faith as a source of hope and direction as they attend weekly support meetings to hear advice from experts and peers. Across the U.S., other churches, synagogues and places of worship now offer programs and services to the unemployed, ranging from networking events to career and mental health counseling, motivational speakers and more. Rabbi Aharon Ciment of Congregation Arzei Darom in Teaneck, NJ, jokes that he is like Sy Sperling, the president of Hair Club for Men, who famously declared in the late ’80s commercials “I’m not only the hair club president, but I’m also a client.” Ciment can relate to congregants in need because there was a time when he too was out of work. Now about to receive his Masters in Mental Health while teaching high school students, Ciment says he would not have considered the idea of going back to school had he not lost his old job and realizes now that it was divine intervention. He echoes what Fiona stresses about Hishtadlut . During his period of unemployment, he made every effort to look for a new job. In addition, he says, one must have Emunah — belief, to go along with one’s personal efforts. “Never lose hope,” he stresses, “God remembers all of us.”

Read the full article →

Toby Barlow: To the Employees at the Borders Stores Scheduled to Close: Open a Bookstore

February 16, 2011

Just because headquarters can’t figure out how to make your location viable does not mean you can’t. You’ve got loyal customers, you know the shelves. You’ve been sitting behind the cash register for years now saying, “If it was up to me…” So, do it! Organize, approach Borders and say, “Okay, let’s figure out a way to be creative here.” They might be happy to have a positive PR spin. Then track down the landlord and talk with them, they don’t want a vacant hole in the wall, they want a tenant, because one tenant makes it more attractive for other tenants. So maybe you can work out a deal. Just give ‘em a call. Get people involved. Invite local school kids to come up with a name for your store. Hold a social where the members of your sci-fi book club mingle with your romantic novel book club members. Hold a contest for local musicians to write your radio jingle and then crowd source the funding to run the ad. Invite the high school debate team to come and debate electronic vs. classic books. Get local reporters to report on the story of “The Little Bookshop That Could.” Invite local banjo players to accompany authors at readings (okay! bad idea!) Yes, it’s true that some forces are working against you, but when isn’t that true in life? And yes, there are fewer independent bookstores out there, but you know why? Places like Borders put them out of business. So, Border’s demise gives the indie a fighting chance, right? In fact, quite a few independent bookstores are doing pretty well. Word bookstore in Greenpoint, Book Court in Cobble Hill, and in our own rough and tumble downtown Detroit, Leopold’s Books has been chugging along with an eclectic mix of quirky books, graphic novels, and offbeat magazines. There’s a customer in there every time I stop by and they’re always buying something. The good news is there is help out there. After battling the mega book chains for years, the independent bookstores have come up with a wealth of tools to help the independent bookstore succeed. Poke around online, you’ll see. Don’t be depressed, this is going to be interesting. Don’t be discouraged, okay, well, be a little discouraged, but just have a beer and order a pizza and then come out swinging. Sell what you love and talk about it all the time. Be creative and have fun.

Read the full article →

BP, ARCO Sued For Alleged Water Contamination From Toxic Mine

February 16, 2011

RENO, Nev. — Neighbors of a toxic mine in northern Nevada have filed a class-action lawsuit against BP America and Atlantic Richfield Co. accusing them of intentionally and negligently concealing the extent of the contamination leaking off the abandoned site for decades. The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Reno on Monday seeks a minimum of $5 million on behalf of at least 100 residents in the rural town of Yerington where the old Anaconda copper mine opened in 1941. The plaintiffs say the wells they once used for drinking water are polluted with uranium, arsenic and other metals in a plume of groundwater that slowly has migrated off of the site that covers 6-square miles – an area equal to the size of about 3,000 football fields – about 65 miles southeast of Reno. The lawsuit says that even after whistleblowers started to publicize previously secret records documenting the dangers, the corporations refused to cooperate with state and federal regulators trying to clean up the radioactive and other hazardous waste the past 10 years. “They destroyed the water supply to this community and now it’s time to clean it up. It’s time to get the contamination off these people’s land and out of their wells,” said Steven German, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the residents. “A mother should not have to tell her child they can’t turn on the spigot because their water is dangerous. That is not acceptable in this country,” he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. The lawsuit said the companies knew or should have known that their discharge of toxic and hazardous materials would pollute neighboring properties, air, water, groundwater and the surrounding environment. It said they have `intentionally allowed toxic and hazardous substances to enter and remain on” the neighbors’ land. “Despite their knowledge of the serious health and environmental effects associated with exposure to toxic and hazardous substances and despite orders and warnings form health and environmental regulators, (BP and ARCO) intentionally masked the true extent of the contamination, thereby enabling (them) to avoid taking all appropriate steps to properly remediate the toxic and hazardous substances or to mitigate the dangers created by their release, discharge, storage, handling, processing, disposal of and dumping of toxic and hazardous substances,” the suit said. Tom Mueller, a spokesman for BP America, said Tuesday evening that company officials have not had a chance to review the lawsuit and had no immediate comment. Fueled by demand after World War II, Anaconda produced nearly 1.75 billion pounds of copper from 1952-78 at the mine that runs along U.S. Highway 95 in the Mason Valley, an irrigated agricultural oasis in the area’s otherwise largely barren high desert. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined over the years that uranium was produced as a byproduct of processing the copper and that the radioactive waste was initially dumped into dirt-bottomed ponds that – unlike modern lined ponds – leaked into the groundwater. Officials for BP and its subsidiary Atlantic Richfield, which bought Anaconda Copper Co. in 1978, have provided bottled water for free to any residents who want it over the past few years. But they have insisted that uranium naturally occurs in the region’s soil and, until recently, they argued there was no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals there was responsible for the contamination. However, a new wave of EPA testing first reported by The Associated Press in November 2009 found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink. “You now have evidence of mine-impacted groundwater,” Steve Acree, a highly regarded hydrogeologist for the EPA in Oklahoma brought in to examine the test results, told AP at the time. One monitoring well a half mile away had levels of uranium more than 10 times the legal drinking water standard. At the mine itself, wells tested as high as 100 times the standard in an area where ore was processed with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in unlined ponds. Though the health effects of specific levels are not well understood, the EPA says long-term exposure to high levels of uranium in drinking water may cause cancer and damage kidneys.

Read the full article →

Chris Weigant: Budget Season Overview

February 15, 2011

It’s “Budget Season” once again in Washington, and since it’s going to be a particularly contentious and complex one this year, it’s worth taking a moment at the beginning to provide an overview of the entire process which is about to play out over the next two or three months. There are, at this point, three main budget battles to be fought. One of these isn’t strictly a budget battle, but will likely devolve into one, hence its inclusion in the list. Two of these have hard and fast calendar deadlines. All three of them are going to be major political battles, and it’s unclear what the outcome of any of them is going to be at this point. Let’s look at these three items, in the order they’re going to be fought on Capitol Hill, and then we’ll take a look at some of the political constraints on each side of this fight.

Read the full article →

Lucy P. Marcus: Future Proofing the Boardroom: Grounding and Stargazing

February 14, 2011

The role of modern corporate boards is the juxtaposition of grounding and stargazing. Grounding is about making sure that the company fulfills all of its legal requirements, manages its risks properly, and does business in a responsible way. It is about all of the vital things we associate with board oversight tasks in corporate governance, compliance and corporate risk. But with that comes an equally and perhaps even more important role: grounding needs to be complemented by stargazing. This is where a board demonstrates its mettle in making sure that their organization is ready and able to expand its horizons, to strive to achieve more and stretch itself to become the robust and resilient business that is capable of responding effectively to the unknowns in its future. Stargazing should be a big component of the strategic work that a board does. Both grounding and stargazing require asking questions, looking beyond the obvious and the comfortable, and actively engaging with the organization. The emphasis these days seems to be on the tick-boxing of risk management. In speaking with fellow board members from around the world and across a wide variety of sectors, I’ve found that concern for risk exposure coupled with a desire not to appear too meddlesome and the time commitments required to do the job properly means that they sometimes leave too little time room for discussions of strategy. This is a real loss for organizations of all sizes, as part of the purpose of having independent directors with a broad range of skills is to draw on the knowledge and understanding around the table and the broader perspective they bring to help propel the organization to new heights. Grounding is a big part of the vital role of directors -0 ensuring that companies are managing their risk, fulfilling their requirements, “playing by the rules”, and being good corporate citizens. But even when fulfilling that role, strategy needs to play a part. In every audit committee and compensation committee, there must be room for considering what the company can do to push itself that much further to achieve more, and better, things for all its stakeholders. Most importantly, getting the balance right between the two functions of grounding and stargazing helps to ensure that the company is doing what it needs to future proof itself, and it requires board members who can think outside the box and who also know when to get back in the box. Note: This was originally published on the Marcus Ventures website and on CSRWire .

Read the full article →

Kathleen E. Christensen: The False Choice: A Flexible Job or a Good Job?

February 13, 2011

Workplace flexibility: eighty percent of American employees say they want it, nearly half of job seekers rate it as a higher priority than salary, and thousands of companies have embraced it as an efficient way to keep employees happy and boost business productivity. But despite all this, there is still a widespread misconception that workplace flexibility is only appropriate to a certain type of job. A simple job, the thinking goes, can be accomplished by someone working off-site, or working non-traditional hours, or sharing a job with another part-time employee; but “serious jobs” still require rigid, traditional work schedules and set-ups. This line of thinking is epitomized by the dilemma facing a worker who wrote into The Wall Street Journal ‘s Ask The Juggle this week: The reader, a working mother, has an opportunity to step into a new job with her current employer that would allow her to work from home one or two days a week. The new job would give her flexibility to spend more time with her two young children….The problem is, the job isn’t that exciting, and she is overqualified for it. Taking it also wouldn’t help her resume much in any future job search… It’s not just working moms, but employees of all stripes who face this quandary: to take the flexible job or the good job? But it raises a more important question: why is this employee–clearly talented enough to hold a challenging position–only offered flexibility if she takes a worse job? Instead, why can’t she and her employer work together to find a way to make the job she has more flexible? The answer, of course, is that making a challenging job flexible is, well…challenging. But it’s not impossible. The pioneering employers who have won Alfred P. Sloan Awards for Business Excellence in Workplace Flexibility have shown that there are many different routes to workplace flexibility . Innovation in other countries has shown that even doctors, lawyers and business leaders stand to benefit from increased flexibility . As Sue Shellenbarger said in her thoughtful response to this reader, “most jobs require some sacrifices. Trade-offs like this are what make the juggle such a nonstop challenge. The right answer is different for everyone.” Perhaps working form home twice a week isn’t possible with this woman’s job. But maybe it is possible to shift when the work is done so that a spouse or other family member can be home when this mother is at work. Maybe it’s possible to let her share the job with another talented employee. Or maybe this mother and her employee need to come up with a completely new way to match this job with her life. The point is that every job, no matter how demanding or challenging, can be tweaked to make it more flexible. And, a wide array of research has shown that workers across the spectrum are more efficient when they have flexibility over how, when and where their work gets done. Perhaps the biggest misconception about workplace flexibility is that it means working less. It doesn’t. I have seen many examples of employees who get more work done when given flexibility in when, where and how they do their work. This isn’t about decreasing the number of hours someone works or giving them fewer responsibilities. It’s about customizing a job so that it fits with a life. Oftentimes this even means the employee works more. Almost always it means that they work better, are more engaged with their job, and less likely to leave the company. We need to move past this outdated image of a good worker as someone who has no life or family issues distracting them from work. A good worker is someone who figures out how to fit their job with their life and family responsibilities so that they are not distracted from either. Because of the many benefits it offers to both employees and employers, workplace flexibility is now included in the Department of Labor’s definition of a “good job.” Every business should make it possible for each employee to sit down with their manager and figure out how to make their job fit with their life. If they take the time to do this, they’ll end up with more productive employees and more efficient businesses. No talented employee should have to answer the question, “do I want a good job or do I want a flexible job?” Instead, each of us should be asking, “how do I make my good job a flexible job?”

Read the full article →

Wendell Potter: The Insurers’ Real Agenda for Change

February 12, 2011

The media had lots of health care news to obsess about last week. A federal judge ruled the health care reform law unconstitutional, and Senate Republicans tried in vain to repeal the law. But most of the press paid virtually no attention to a potentially much more important development — a multi-pronged effort by five major insurers to strip from the law key regulations and consumer protections that aren’t to their liking. The insurers do not want the bill repealed or declared unconstitutional. Congress gave them exactly what they wanted by including in the legislation a requirement that all Americans not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid buy coverage from a private insurance company. That provision alone will result in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and profits the insurers otherwise would never see. Officially, the insurers are maintaining neutrality on the court challenges to the law and the repeal efforts. They understand that Republican attorneys general who filed the lawsuits and the Congressional Republicans who voted to repeal the law — most of whom received campaign contributions from the insurers’ political action committees — must go through the motions to satisfy “the base.” The court challenges and repeal efforts are, in reality, a useful smokescreen for the big insurers, whose real agenda is to gut the law while preserving the mandate. Expect a big lobbying and PR campaign — financed by our insurance premiums — to persuade us that the new regulations and consumer protections will make those premiums skyrocket. The story much of the press missed was the revelation that the CEOs and lobbyists for the five biggest for-profits — UnitedHealth, WellPoint, Aetna, CIGNA and Humana — have been meeting frequently to plot their attack on the law. Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong reported that three committees formed by the group have been meeting almost weekly. While Armstrong didn’t indicate what those committees are doing, I can speculate from previous experience as an insurance company executive that the committees are developing strategies in these areas: lobbying, strategic communications the formation of alliances with other political and business groups and the creation of fake grassroots, or “Astroturf” organizations. Bloomberg and the the National Journal also reported that the for-profits have solicited proposals from three big PR firms that have done extensive work for the industry: APCO WorldWide, Weber Shandwick and Public Strategies. It sounds familiar. While I was serving as head of corporation communications at CIGNA, I hired APCO and Weber Shandwick to help direct similar efforts and to enhance CIGNA’s reputation. The for-profits reportedly formed the new coalition — as yet unnamed — because they were upset that America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), their umbrella trade association, had been unsuccessful in keeping the new regulations and consumer protections out of the law in the first place. So they’re going back to a familiar and successful playbook. Over the past two decades, the big insurers have formed such coalitions to defeat reform initiatives or to persuade the public and lawmakers to see things their way. When the Clinton reform plan was being debated in 1993 and 1994, Aetna, CIGNA, Prudential and United formed the Alliance for Managed Care (AMC) to argue for a “market-based” solution — managed competition, as it came to be called — as an alternative to broader government involvement in health care. The AMC described itself as “a private-sector approach to health care system reform that uses the marketplace and the power of informed consumer choices to achieve better coverage, while improving quality and cutting costs.” The AMC later joined a broader coalition that included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to defeat the Clinton plan. A few years later, within weeks of being named as defendants in two massive class-action lawsuits, the for-profits formed a new group, America’s Health Insurers (AHI), designed to redirect scrutiny away from them and toward the trial lawyers behind the suits. Attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs alone cost the companies billions of dollars in market capitalization when the Wall Street Journal reported on Sept. 31, 1999, that Scruggs was planning to file charges against the insurance firms. On that day, stock prices of Aetna and United alone had plunged nearly 20 percent by the time the closing bell rang at the New York Stock Exchange. I was CIGNA’s main representative to America’s Health Insurers. My counterparts from other big insurers and I met secretly in hotel conference rooms in Washington and elsewhere with APCO to plan the PR strategy. The idea was to “reframe the debate” — shift attention away from the reasons the insurers were being sued — onerous policies and cheating doctors out of payments — and toward those trial lawyers who were getting filthy rich filing “frivolous” lawsuits. The lawyers — not the insurers — were the real villains. APCO reactivated the front group it had created for the tobacco industry — the Coalition Against Lawsuit Abuse — to generate letters-to-the editor and op-ed pieces in cities where the lawsuits had been filed – particularly Miami, where suits were eventually consolidated. The intent was to influence both the federal judges and potential jurors. (The suits were ultimately settled, with the defendants agreeing to change many of their practices and to pay the plaintiffs hundreds of millions of dollars.) I was also CIGNA’s representative to yet another organization — the Coalition for Affordable Quality Healthcare (CAQH) — that the big insurers created later. We mounted a huge PR and advertising campaign designed to restore Americans’ faith in managed care, which had taken a beating in the press for such well-publicized practices as “drive-through mastectomies” and “drive-though deliveries.” So this new grouping is just the latest variant on an oft-used tactic to influence public opinion and public policy. This time, however, the stakes are even higher, for both the insurers and for consumers. What don’t the companies like? Well, for starters, the rules that now require insurance firms to devote at least 80 percent of what we pay in premiums for actual medical care. But their sights are also on other provisions of the law that might impair profits. AHIP spokesman Robert Zirklebach provided a glimpse of what insurers really want when he told a reporter last week that industry lobbyists have embarked on a campaign to “educate” members of Congress about ‘flaws’ in the law. For instance, the industry will be trying to persuade lawmakers that young people, many of whom are being charged too much already, will see their premiums go sky high. How do you fix that? The insurers, of course, have an answer: get rid of the requirement that insurers can only sell policies that meet minimum benefit requirements and jettison the prohibition against charging older Americans any more than three times as much as young people. They want to charge them five to ten times as much. If the latest coalition of big for-profit insurance firms meets its objectives, many of us will eventually be convinced — through sophisticated, behind-the-scenes PR campaigns — that those protections are not in our best interests after all. If those campaigns help the big insurers eliminate such protections, that would be ideal for their bottom lines — but devastating for consumers. This also appeared on the Center for Public Integrity ‘s website.

Read the full article →

Pandora Tunes Up For IPO

February 12, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO — Popular Internet radio service Pandora is tuning up for an IPO later this year. In documents filed Friday, Pandora indicated it would raise $100 million with an initial public offering stock. That figure will likely change as bankers gauge the demand to invest in or an 11-year-old company that has helped change the way people listen to music. A target price for the shares won’t be set until the IPO is closer to happening. The offering probably won’t happen for at least three months. Pandora’s decision to go public is the latest sign that Internet companies sense the time is ripe to mine the markets for money amid growing excitement about digital media and online networking. Demand Media Inc., an online service that hires freelance writers to go write stories about frequently searched topics, made a big splash with its IPO last month and professional networking service LinkedIn Corp. filed its IPO papers last week. In the past few days, AOL Inc. agreed to buy online news and opinion service Huffington Post for $315 million and The Wall Street Journal reported that online messaging service Twitter may now be worth $8 billion to $10 billion. Online coupon service Groupon Inc. is expected to go public later this year and Facebook – the most prized of all privately held Internet companies with a market value recently pegged at $50 billion – may file its IPO papers next year. Given the growing fervor for widely used Internet services, it makes sense for Pandora to make the IPO leap now, said Inside Digital Media analyst Phil Leigh. “It’s kind of like nuclear fission; we’re seeing a chain reaction of these things,” he said. Pandora Media Inc. started out in 2000 as a music recommendation service called Savage Beast Technologies. It changed its name in 2005 when it launched an Internet radio service that allows people to stream music over the Web – enabling users to tailor playlists suited to their tastes to listen whenever they want, wherever they want to be. The idea came from Pandora founder Tim Westergren, an avid musician who also has worked as a record producer. Westergren, 45, is now the company’s chief strategy officer and one of its largest stockholders with 3.6 million shares. Joseph Kennedy, a former salesman for automaker Saturn Corp. and executive for online banker E-Loan, has been Pandora’s CEO since 2005. He owns 4.2 million Pandora shares. Other major shareholders in line for a potential windfall are venture capitalists Crosslink Capital, Walden Venture Capital and Greylock Partners. Those three firms collectively own about 85 million shares. Hearst Corp., a major newspaper and magazine publisher, also is a major stockholder with 8.7 million shares. Pandora lets users create “stations” by typing in the name of an artist or song on its site: The site’s software uses that information to create a personalized stream of music that may include the artist or song you indicated plus other similar music. If you like a song, you can give it a thumbs-up. Songs you don’t enjoy can be skipped, but you can only skip a limited number of songs. Pandora users have created more than 1.4 billion stations thus far. In addition to its website, Pandora.com, Pandora also offers several apps that enable its use on smart phones like the iPhone and phones that run Google Inc.’s Android operating software. The basic Pandora service is free, with most of its revenue coming from advertising, just like traditional radio stations. Users can pay more to get rid of the ads, enable unlimited listening time and more “skips” and receive higher-quality songs. Most people apparently are willing tolerate the ads. The IPO documents said 86 percent of Pandora’s revenue came from advertising in its fiscal year just completed Jan. 31. The company has lost $83.9 million since its inception and remains unprofitable, according to Friday’s filing. In the first nine months of its last fiscal year, Pandora suffered a $328,000 loss on revenue of $90.1 million. The filing said its independent auditor determined there was “material weakness” in Pandora’s financial reporting practices. The company said it’s trying to fix the problems. .

Read the full article →

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson: Fiscal Follies: Tackling the National Debt in 500 Words or Less

February 11, 2011

Since we write about public opinion and believe strongly in public engagement , we’ll be the first to admit that much of the public is woefully uninformed about the federal budget and the country’s choices for getting a handle on its mushrooming national debt. Most Americans know it’s a problem, and they want it fixed. After that, things get a lot hazier. Unfortunately, the country’s leadership has now frittered away much of the time we could have used to educate the American people on this issue. President Obama is submitting his proposed budget Monday , and Republicans are already putting out their counter-plans , but neither has really laid the groundwork with the public for the implications of the spending cuts or tax increases that are necessary if we really want to get our finances under control. Now we really need to get a move on, and the electorate is both unrealistic and cranky. So here goes. Here’s what Americans really need to know (in 500 words or less): We have to start now because this could get ugly really fast. In about 10 years, the federal debt will be as big as our entire economy –100 percent of GDP. We’ll be spending more on interest payments than on defense. Just cutting what people normally think of as “big government” won’t do it. In 2010, the deficit was about $1.3 trillion. Eliminating the Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Transportation, HHS, and HUD entirely would save less than $300 billion . We would still have a trillion dollars worth of red ink. Income tax rates are lower now than they have been for most of the last four decades. In the 1970s, top tax rates were twice as high. We’ve extended current rates for two years while the economy improves. After that, they need to be on the table. Yes, Social Security and Medicare are part of it. In as little as 10 years, government auditors say that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, plus interest on the debt, could suck up more than 90 cents out of every tax dollar. There would be almost no money for anything else. It’s time to stop the blame game. The federal budget has been in the red for 31 out of the last 35 years , and both President Bush and President Obama added trillions of dollars to the debt. There’s enough blame to go around. It’s finding solutions that matters. Don’t fall for the bogus Beltway debate over “tackling the budget” versus “focusing on the economy.” It’s a false choice. We have to do both, and we can decide on changes now that kick in once the economy improves. There are hundreds of different proposals that would help. The big choice for most of us is whether to go with one that focuses on cutting spending even in popular areas to keep taxes low, or one that preserves popular programs, but raises taxes instead. Nearly all reasonable plans include some of both. Be ready to compromise. To solve this problem, we’ll all have to live with something we don’t like. Refusing to compromise means more delay, and that’s the one thing we can’t afford. If we act quickly and responsibly, we can do this.

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: Why Integrity Is Never Easy

February 10, 2011

Browse through the mission, vision, or value statements that corporations post on their websites, and you’ll notice that almost every company includes a statement about integrity . And if you Google the following examples, you’ll find that many companies use these stock phrases: “We combine integrity with excellence…” “We act with integrity in all we do.” “We hold honesty and integrity as our guiding principles.” “We are proud of the integrity, sincerity and transparency our employees demonstrate every day.” Morally upright statements, right? But have you ever wondered why they are needed in the first place? After all, integrity should be the basic building block for doing business: Nobody wants to get involved with a company that lies, cheats, and tricks its customers ; nor do people want to work for a company (or a manager) that is dishonest and disingenuous with employees. In other words, integrity should be a given , without the need to trumpet its existence. As one senior executive said to me, “Integrity is a threshold characteristic for our people — if they don’t have it, they aren’t here.” Yet it’s not that simple, for two reasons: First, is the innate human ability to rationalize behavior. For example, if you ask high school students whether or not it is right to cheat, most will say that cheating is wrong. Yet research suggests that as many as 95% of such students admit to having engaged in some form of cheating. Most of the time, this involves a specific incident where the students had to make a choice. In hindsight, the students justify the choice as “not really cheating,” “no big deal,” or something that “everyone else does.” In other words, they rationalize their situational behavior, and this way they can still consider themselves to be honest. The reality is that all of us (and not just students) face integrity-based choices on a regular basis. Do we tell customers about all of the warts on our products? Do we reveal everything to a prospective buyer during due diligence? Is it acceptable to hide certain aspects of our background in a résumé? What’s considered a legitimate expense on a business trip? How much of billable time is really devoted to a client? How honest should I be when giving feedback to my boss or subordinate? None of these situations have clear answers — and no corporate policy can cover every contingency. As a result, no matter what choice we make, we can convince ourselves that it was made with integrity. And that leads to the second reason why integrity is so difficult: Everyone defines integrity differently. Falsifying information to one person might be considered an acceptable business practice to another. This is further exacerbated by differences in culture — for example in some business cultures people are expected to openly do favors for each other, while in other cultures those favors would be considered bribes. The power of rationalization and the difficulties of definition reveal integrity as a subject that is neither easy nor simple. That’s why solely relying on compliance functions, policies, rules, and audits — the integrity police — is usually inadequate. These mechanisms guard against gross and clearly illegal violations of integrity standards, but they do not deal with the integrity choices that we face every day. These choices require personal judgment. In some ways the value statements about integrity are meant to remind us that integrity is not just a corporate responsibility, but a personal one as well. If you are a manager, you can apply these values by setting aside time with your team to share integrity dilemmas and choices and discuss the thinking behind individuals’ decisions. Make sure these meetings take place in a “safe” environment, where people can openly share their thoughts. If you hold these discussions regularly, you’ll gradually get beyond the rationalizations and develop more common definitions of what is acceptable and what is not — which is the essence of an integrity culture. What’s your experience with making integrity more than just a word in your company’s mission statement? Cross-posted from Harvard Business Review

Read the full article →

Obama’s Big Budget Cut Proposals Target The Poor

February 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — As Democrats and Republicans wrangle over fiscal austerity and the shape of the 2012 federal budget, the White House is targeting programs in the $4 trillion budget that benefit low-income Americans. It’s a sop to moderates and conservatives, and it’s likely to infuriate voters who put President Barack Obama in the White House. In the past week, the Obama administration has signaled that it will propose significant cuts to community service block grants and an energy assistance program that helps poor people stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer. A White House source familiar with the budget process told HuffPost that the president will propose cutting $2.5 billion from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program , or LIHEAP, which received $5.1 billion in federal funds in 2009. That program distributes money to states, which then distribute it to social service agencies to help families heat or cool their homes. The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association , a group that represents state aid officials in Washington, said Wednesday that the bad economy has forced more low-income households to rely on LIHEAP. About 8.3 million households used it in fiscal 2010, up from 7.7 million and 5.8 million during the previous two years, and the association expects eligible applications to rise to 8.9 million this year. NEADA director Mark Wolfe told HuffPost that the administration’s proposal would cut off 3.5 million households. “It’s just a cruel proposal,” Wolfe said. “What this would do is take some of the most vulnerable families in the country off energy assistance.” HuffPost readers: Used LIHEAP to heat your home? Tell us about it — email arthur@huffingtonpost.com . Wolfe said he assumed the White House had “drawn a circle” around education-aid programs like Pell Grants and Head Start. “My guess is that the administration sees a course of programs they want to protect,” he said. “But why offer this up before the Republicans suggest cuts. Why volunteer us? Why volunteer LIHEAP?” The White House declined to address these concerns on the record, though a source noted that energy prices are lower now than when Congress increased LIHEAP funding for 2009. Although energy prices have indeed declined since then, Bob Greenstein, the director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, pointed out that the overall economy hasn’t improved much since then. Price drops don’t offer much relief to people still looking for jobs. “The unemployment rate is higher and there are lot more people that have low incomes today than during fiscal 2008 when this was written,” Greenstein said. “I’m certainly surprised and disappointed at this cut.” And this isn’t the only program for low-income people that the White House has put on the chopping block, at a time when the administration and Congress chose to extend tax cuts for upper income and wealthy Americans. Community service block grants, which fund community organizers in poor neighborhoods, are also facing cuts. During the 2008 campaign, Obama emphasized that his own resume included a stint as a community organizer. White House budget director Jacob Lew said in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Obama would propose cleaving block-grant allocations to $350 million from $700 million. “These are grassroots groups working in poor communities, dedicated to empowering those living there and helping them with some of life’s basic necessities,” Lew wrote. “These are the kinds of programs that President Obama worked with when he was a community organizer, so this cut is not easy for him.” David Bradley, director of the National Community Action Foundation, that works with Congress and local governments on behalf of programs for low-income people, said he was surprised that the president, a former community organizer, would go after programs that represent such a tiny part of the massive federal budget. “The question is why? Why pick on this program? It makes a statement, particularly when you’re able to say, ‘Here’s a program I really care about,’” Bradley said. “Once the Obama administration throws a poverty program in the water, it starts a feeding frenzy.” Bradley said the the White House has thrown chum into the waters swirling around the budget-cut debate. He said the Obama administration’s move simply emboldened Republicans to propose even deeper cuts to the same programs. In the wake of the White House proposal, Republicans said yesterday that they would seek $405 million in cuts to community service block grants as part of their proposed continuing resolution , a stopgap budget measure that would fund the federal government for the rest of the year. Even before word of the block grant and LIHEAP cuts, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty worried that the White House will abandon a waning homeless prevention program created by the stimulus bill. The White House has also stepped on other programs for poor folks. In August, it pushed Congress to pass a child-nutrition bill — a priority of the First Lady’s — that was paid for in part with cuts to future funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as “food stamps.” At the time, the Food Research and Action Center, a national anti-hunger organization that lobbies on behalf of food stamps and other programs, estimated that a family of four will receive $59 less per month starting in November 2013 as a result of the $2.2-billion cut, which came on the heels of another $11.9-billion cut to food stamps that was folded into a state-aid bill. More than 100 House Democrats protested and promised to block the child nutrition bill because of the cuts, but the White House persuaded them to fall in line. With mounting evidence that the White House is willing to sacrifice low-income assistance as it jockeys for position in budget and election battles, it may be hard this time around to convince congressional Democrats to support the proposed block grant or LIHEAP cuts. The 11 Democratic members of Congress from Massachusetts sent Obama a letter on Monday opposing cuts to the block grants. And one prominent Democrat has already voiced his displeasure with the LIHEAP proposal. “I understand that difficult cuts have to be made,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to the White House on Wednesday. “But in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens. I request that the administration preserve LIHEAP funding at least to the Fiscal Year 2010 funding at $5.1 billion when it submits its FY12 budget proposal to Congress.” In Massachusetts, eligible applications to LIHEAP increased 21.1 percent in 2009, and that represents a population of voters likely to be as disgruntled about the White House’s proposal as Kerry.

Read the full article →

Mayor Daley Meets With Airlines To Talk O’Hare Expansion

February 9, 2011

CHICAGO — Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is giving no hint he’s close to a deal with airlines on securing funding for the rest of a $15 billion expansion of O’Hare International Airport. In a statement released Wednesday after he met airline executives in Washington, Daley called the conversation “candid” but didn’t discuss any progress. United and American are the largest airlines operating out of O’Hare. They’ve balked at having to foot most of the bill for expansion. They’ve even sued over the issue. O’Hare expansion is a legacy project for Daley. He has accused airline executives of being short-sighted and avoiding him. As his time in office winds down, Daley says ensuring the project’s long-term viability is a priority and that he’ll pull out the stops to make it happen.

Read the full article →

Rakim Brooks: Obama and the King Who Knelt in the Snow

February 9, 2011

On Monday, President Obama spoke to the Chamber of Commerce, the leading business-interest lobby in the United States. The occasion marked the President’s newest attempt to rally business to solve America’s short and long-term economic problems. Unfortunately, it also served to remind the American people that corporate business, not the American people, control the country’s destiny. Mr. Obama’s presentation was civil, even buoyant, but that did nothing to hide the tension between him and the Chamber. Mr. Obama stood in front of men and women who had fought health care reform viciously, spent millions successfully advertising against Democratic incumbents in the 2010 elections, opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, and who now were refusing to spend billions of dollars being held in reserve. He was well aware that many in the room wanted, to quote Rush Limbaugh his Presidency to fail. Yet, rather than “take on the special interests” as he had promised to do so many times in his 2008 campaign and presidency, he played the political version of Mr. Rogers. “I’m here in the interest of being more neighborly,” Mr. Obama told the Chamber. “Maybe if we would have brought over a fruit cake when I first moved in, we would have gotten off on a better foot. But I’m going to make it up.” His speech underscored his enduring desire to work with US businesses to get America back on the right track: “If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it.” The President stressed that private business would lead America out of the recession and back to global prominence. And in all of this the U.S. government and the Obama Administration would act as a sidekick. It was disturbing to watch Mr. Obama strain to buddy-up with his political enemies, not because it is likely to prove ineffective, but because it made the leader of the free world seem servile and insignificant. With each half-hearted punch line, Mr. Obama became more and more like the king who knelt in the snow. The scene was Europe at the turn of the first century. Pope Gregory VII had attempted to strip Emperor Henry IV of his sovereign right to appoint the clergymen that served the Holy Roman Empire. When the Emperor resisted and, in a show of ultimate defiance, challenged Gregory’s legitimacy as Holy Pontiff, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor, thus severing him from the Holy Church and all of Christendom. The events that followed were pure political spectacle. After a series of diplomatic scuffles, the Emperor chose to apologize to the Pope. And in the most dramatic display of servility, he marched to meet the Pope in Italy. But when he arrived, the Pope refused to grant him entry. The Emperor, determined to regain favor, then stood in the snow, barefoot, praying for forgiveness. For three days, the Emperor was given no quarter or sustenance. Still, he continued to pray without knowing whether his prayers would be heard; the Pope had previously declared the excommunication irrevocable. On the third day, Pope Gregory relented, and the Emperor was received back into the Christian family. But the point had been made. What came to be known as the Investiture Controversy demonstrated the Papacy’s power to kings throughout Europe and, for centuries, sovereign monarchs cowed before the Pope and the Church. I first heard this story in high school, and I’ve never forgotten it because my adolescent mind could not imagine any Head of State, even of the smallest nation, kneeling before a non-state authority. It just served to remind me how different things were now. No President would ever be caught in such a position, I thought. And then I read President Obama’s speech and could only wonder, “How long has the President been kneeling?” Mr. Obama’s remarks suggest that he might have been in this position for a very long time – we are just now beginning to take notice. But what’s worse is that Mr. Obama’s kneeling reveals that American democracy is imperiled. A democratic nation should be ruled by the many, not the few. Yet, the Chamber of Commerce is attempting to determine the economic, and thus political, fate of our nation. Like religious authorities of the first millennium, business has asserted its dominance over the affairs of sovereign men. What is to be done? The responses of both the political Right and Left have been unimpressive. The political right would have us believe that the President has been hostile to business. If he would only be friendlier to business interests and stop confusing them with unnecessary regulations, the economy would jump-start. But the truth is that President Obama has been more than neighborly, to the tune of $700 billion. He’s promised more in his State of the Union, saying the U.S. would focus on infrastructure and technology spending. All this and the Right still thinks that he’s hostile? They must be taking that fruitcake joke seriously! If the Right thinks Mr. Obama has been too hostile, the Left believes he’s been too friendly. They look at his Cabinet and Staff and hold their noses. His inner circle reeks of Wall Street types and centrists like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, and new White House Chief of Staff William Daley. Too much money and too little concern for the disadvantaged, critics shout. Cornel West has gone so far as to pose the most existential of questions to the President: “How deep is your love for poor and working people?” The problem with this question is that it could be turned right around and posed to the American Left. This is not to say that Mr. Obama has not clung to the center, but did he have a choice? After 2008, the legions of young, independent, and African American voters that helped Mr. Obama secure the presidency abandoned the Democrats in the midterm elections. When he needed them most, they didn’t turn up to the ballot box and, thus, we saw Democratic majorities shredded in both the House and the Senate. It’s no surprise then that the President compromised with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the rich. He didn’t have the legislative support to do otherwise. But he did secure unemployment benefits for over 14 million Americans who need them. Is that not love? And, if that’s not enough, let’s remember, if raising one child takes a village, it takes more than one man to raise a nation. In short, the Left would rather chastise President Obama than help him to his feet, while the Right would prefer to ask him to lie down flat on his belly and grovel (as though that would help). None of this serves the interests of the American people. What the Right and Left seem to be missing is that this isn’t about one man. The way the Chamber and corporate business interests approach the President speaks volumes about how they treat each of us. It is no wonder then that, as Mr. Obama is being cowed, millions of Americans are unemployed, millions more are underemployed, and states are either going into the red, forcing their citizens to do without vital services, or both. The Nation’s fate is tied to its President’s, and as long as he is kept kneeling, America will not move forward. Corporate business interests have had a strangle hold on Washington for many decades now. And the President’s kneeling reveals that there is no easy way to break this corporate death grip. One thing is clear, however: It is in our interest – Left, Right and, yes, Tea Party – to form a collective bulwark against the Chamber and its attempts to determine our political futures, to tell the Chamber that a free people will not bend before the will of business as man once bent before the will of God. Because, if we fail to stand together, we’ll all be left with cold (wet) feet.

Read the full article →

The Rise & Fall Of Florida’s Foreclosure King, David J. Stern

February 7, 2011

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — During the housing crash, it was good to be a foreclosure king. David Stern was Florida’s top foreclosure lawyer, and he lived like an oil sheik. He piled up a collection of trophy properties, glided through town in a fleet of six-figure sports cars and, with his bombshell wife, partied on an ocean cruiser the size of a small hotel. When homeowners fell behind on their mortgages, the banks flocked to “foreclosure mills” like Stern’s to push foreclosures through the courts on their behalf. To his megabank clients – Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, GMAC, Citibank and Wells Fargo – Stern was the ultimate Repo Man. At industry gatherings, Stern bragged in his boyish voice of taking mortgages from the “cradle to the grave.” Of the federal government’s disastrous homeowner relief plan, which was supposed to keep people from getting evicted, he quipped: “Fortunately, it’s failing.” The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern. That is, until last fall, when the nation’s foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern’s gilded world came undone. Within a few months, Stern went from being the subject of a gushing magazine profile to being the subject of a Florida investigation, class-action lawsuits and blogger Schadenfreude that, at last long, the “foreclosure king” was dead. “What Stern represents is an industry that was completely unrestrained, unchecked, unpunished and unsupervised,” says Florida defense attorney Matt Weidner. “This was business gone wild.” The rise and fall of Stern, now 50, provides an inside look at how the foreclosure industry worked in the last decade – and how it fell apart. It also shows how banks, together with their law firms, built a quick-and-dirty foreclosure machine that was designed to take as many houses as fast as possible. Not long ago, the world of back-office bank procedures was of little interest to the public. But revelations last fall about robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day, without verifying a single sentence, changed all that. Today the banking industry’s eviction juggernaut is under intense scrutiny as allegations of systemic foreclosure fraud mount. The 50 state attorneys general are conducting a foreclosure industry probe. So are state and federal regulators. Class-action lawsuits are gathering force, and, with increasing frequency, state judges are tossing out foreclosure suits in favor of homeowners. The developments are prolonging the housing market depression, casting doubt on mortgage ownership and calling into question whether mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, backed by nothing at all. The Florida attorney general’s economic crimes division is investigating three law firms, including Stern’s, over allegations that they created fraudulent legal documents, gouged homeowners with inflated fees, steered business to companies they owned and filed foreclosures without proving the bank actually had a legal interest in the loan. Florida authorities characterize the foreclosure process at these law firms as a “virtual morass” of “fake documents” and depicted Stern’s operations as something akin to the TV show “Lost” – only instead of people that went missing, it was paperwork. Stern’s employees churned out bogus mortgage assignments, faked signatures, falsified notarizations and foreclosed on people without verifying their identities, the amounts they owed or who owned their loans, according to employee testimony. The attorney general is also looking at whether Stern paid kickbacks to big banks. “There’s a David Stern in every state, sometimes more than one,” says Jacksonville Legal Aid attorney April Charney, who has successfully stopped foreclosure for hundreds of Florida families. Stern denied repeated requests for comment. He did not answer inquiries at his office or at his main residence in Fort Lauderdale. Stern’s lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, agreed to an interview in late December at his Miami office, then canceled it the night before without further comment. Stern’s story, starting with his law degree in 1986 from the South Texas College of Law, can be pieced together through thousands of pages of court documents, myriad depositions and scores of interviews. After working at a law firm for mortgage lenders, Stern started his own practice in Fort Lauderdale in 1994. Four years later, he got a massive break: the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, a government-backed agency that provides market stability for mortgage lenders, named Stern to its exclusive attorney network. That meant Fannie directed banks to use Stern’s firm when foreclosing in Florida. Fannie also named Stern Attorney of the Year in 1998 and 1999. Employees from that era remember an office that liked to party together. Stern enjoyed dressing up for his office bashes. One time he sauntered on stage turned out like Michael Jackson. Almost from the beginning, Stern faced trouble. In 1998, he was named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that he padded fees on foreclosed homeowners. Stern settled for $2.2 million. According to legal testimony at the time from a Fannie Mae official, Fannie was warned about troubles at the Stern firm. But Fannie continued referring cases to Stern. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus says, “At all times, Fannie Mae has had a reasonable expectation that our servicers and the law firms adhere to proper procedures and conduct under the law. In instances where we learn that servicers or law firms are not adhering to our requirements or applicable law, we immediately engage and take appropriate action, which may include termination.” Soon after, Stern was sued again, this time for sexual harassment. A former paralegal alleged that Stern created a “sexually-laden” atmosphere in which he routinely “touched and grabbed and subjected to simulated intercourse” his employees. Stern settled that suit in 2000 for an undisclosed amount. By this time, lawyers and homeowner activists were also warning lenders, federal regulators and the Florida Bar about Stern. In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded Stern for submitting “potentially misleading” fee affidavits. None of the accusations stalled the firm’s steroidal growth. After the economy crashed in the fall of 2008 and ravaged the housing market, Florida, along with Nevada, Arizona and California, became foreclosure central. Stern’s caseload rose from 15,000 foreclosures in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009. His staff tripled to more than 1,200. To keep up with demand, Stern set up offices in the Philippines. When the U.S. staff responsible for entering bank data in the foreclosure files logged off, the offshore workers logged on. Revenue swelled from $41 million in 2006 to $260 million in 2009, according to an SEC filing. The firm moved into a plush, marble-floored headquarters near Miami that was all glass and fountains. By now Stern was driving a Bugatti and had bought at least $60 million in property, including a 16,000-square-foot island compound that sits behind two security gates. But all the paperwork Stern’s firm was cranking out to make this fortune would soon come back to haunt him. The foreclosure business is a volume game. Banks typically pay law firms like Stern’s about $1,400 for each successful foreclosure. But the banks can pay a lot less if the firm doesn’t successfully foreclose within a certain time frame, usually around six months. With so many foreclosures flooding in, Stern’s firm couldn’t keep up. Stern took shortcuts by hiring the young and cheap. “The girls would come out on the floor not knowing what they were doing,” says Tammie Lou Kapusta, who worked in Stern’s foreclosure department in 2008 and 2009. “Mortgages would get placed in different files. They would get thrown out. There was just no real organization when it came to original documents.” Employee depositions paint a picture of a firm under constant pressure from the banks to move faster. The longer it took to foreclose, the more money the banks stood to lose. Like so many in the industry, Stern had a strategy to cope with all the volume and velocity: robo-signing. One employee testified that Stern’s chief lieutenant, a one-time file clerk named Cheryl Samons who rose to become the firm’s chief operating officer, signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading a single word. The employee said Samons’ hand got so tired that she told three other employees to forge her signature. Samons also signed numerous mortgage assignments with a notary stamp that didn’t even exist at the time of signing. Notary stamps are only valid for four years. The only way Samons could have signed mortgage assignments at the time they were supposedly notarized was if she had been capable of time travel. Stern rewarded Samons with a new BMW SUV every year, paid all her bills and took care of the mortgage payment on her home, according to testimony from two employees. Samons did not respond to request for comment. Billings surged. So did the dysfunction. Kapusta testified that she received 100 phone calls a day from people who never received their foreclosure notices or who wanted loan modifications but couldn’t get through to the banks. If she talked too long on the phone, Kapusta testified, Samons would yell at her. “Everything was about getting the judgment entered because we had to report to the banks,” Kapusta said. Stern battled to keep the chaos inside his firm a secret. In 2008 and 2009, whenever the Fannie Mae auditors were about to touch down in Miami for their routine monitoring, Stern’s employees sometimes toiled through the night, ripping the stickers and client codes off of Fannie files and replacing them with those of a different lender. Then, as an extra precaution, they hauled the disguised files to a remote back room. Stern then gave Fannie officials the white-glove treatment, with catered meals and chauffeuring. The incomplete files stayed hidden until the auditors left town. Fannie Mae’s Bonitatibus says that, “To our knowledge, no one at Fannie Mae has had their expenses paid by the Stern Law firm.” Early 2010 brought Stern’s biggest coup. He spun off a chunk of his business called DJSP that performed mortgage process services like title searches and lien monitoring and took it public. The deal reportedly made Stern $146 million, including $55 million cash. DJSP stock started trading in January at about $10 a share. Within months, battered by rumors of indiscretions at Stern’s firm, it was worth half. On July 20, two investors filed a securities-fraud class action alleging that Stern knowingly misled them by failing to disclose the problems within the business. “DJSP was a scam,” says Bill Warner, a Sarasota private eye who successfully defended himself against a foreclosure suit brought by Stern. At the end of July, Florida attorney Kenneth Trent, who had blocked Stern from foreclosing on a homeowner who was current on his mortgage, filed a federal lawsuit against Stern’s firm under a statute normally reserved for gangsters, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act–or RICO. Days later, the Florida attorney general launched an investigation against Stern’s firm and three other foreclosure mills. The AG’s arguments were similar to those brought in Trent’s class action. At first, Stern railed against the media, saying he would defend the company and its reputation against the allegations. Then, in September, he dropped out of sight. Equally elusive is Cheryl Samons, who is no longer with the firm. She left no contact information. In October, one by one, the megabanks started to withdraw their cases from Stern’s firm. Fannie fired Stern on Oct. 22. Stern’s staff of 1,200 has dwindled to 200. DJSP’s stock, worth as much as $13 in April, now trades for pennies. The firm’s fall has spawned more chaos in Florida’s circus-like foreclosure courts. A slew of homes Stern foreclosed on that sold for $240,000 each during the credit bubble sold at auction as orphaned cases for $200. Recently, even the most infamous “rocket docket,” in Lee County, where judges were reported to have signed off on a foreclosure every 30 seconds, ground to a virtual standstill as the Stern firm withdrew from case after case. Some of Stern’s remaining lawyers show up court with greasy hair, fleece jackets and food-stained clothing. As for Stern, if federal and state prosecutors file criminal charges, he could end up in prison. Meanwhile, Stern’s payment on his $12 million line of credit with Bank of America is late. So is the rent on his headquarters. He’s now in default.

Read the full article →