wife

May 16 (Bloomberg) — Richard Miller, a New Orleans native, and his wife Suzanne speak to Bloomberg’s Leela Landress about the Bonnet Carre Spillway upstream from New Orleans. The spillway was opened May 9 to siphon Mississippi floodwaters into Lake Pontchartrain.

Continued here:
Video: Locks Open to Flood Cajun Country, Save New Orleans

{ 0 comments }

Huffington Post…

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported income of $1.728 million for last year, much of it from the sale of the president’s pre-presidency books. They paid federal taxes totaling $453,770 after receiving a $12,334 refund. The Obamas paid their taxes at lowered Bush-era rates, even as he campaigns to end them for households with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000 – a category into which the first family clearly fits. Joining the flocks of Americans filing their taxes near the end of the federal filing period, the Obamas made withholding and other payments to the Internal Revenue Service last year totaling $466,104. That was an overpayment, so they got their refund. The president and first lady reported donating $245,075 – about 14.2 percent of their adjusted gross income – to 36 different charities. The largest single gift was a contribution of $131,075 to the Fisher House Foundation, a charity that offers a scholarship fund for children of soldiers who die or are disabled. The Obamas’ adjusted gross income for 2010 of $1.728 million was well below the $5.5 million they reported for the year before, both totals mostly driven by royalties from books written earlier by Obama. They included his 1995 memoir “Dreams From My Father” and his 2006 political book, “The Audacity of Hope.” The White House released the returns on the day that federal tax returns are due this year, although Obama signed his 1040 form last Tuesday. Michelle Obama signed the tax return on Wednesday. They also released their Illinois income tax returns showing they paid $51,568 in state income taxes for last year. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, reported more modest earnings, a combined adjusted gross income of $379,178, on which they paid $86,626 in federal taxes for 2010. The Bidens’ withholding and earlier payments came to just $79,446 – so they had a tax bill of $7,180 to settle. The Obamas paid 26 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. The Bidens paid 23 percent. The Bidens paid $14,479 in Delaware income taxes and $3,515 in Virginia income taxes. Jill Biden is an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College. The Bidens contributed $5,360 to charities. ___ Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report

Read the original post:
President & First Lady Paid $453,770 Taxes On $1.7 Million Income

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

{ 0 comments }

Couple Heads Off Foreclosure by Fighting Back

April 12, 2011

A New Jersey couple fought a lender’s foreclosure proceedings and ended up being able to keep their home. George Elghossain and his wife, Mona, successfully defended against a mortgage loan servicer that tried to foreclose on their 4-bedroom home. The April 4 court decision set a precedent for other homeowners in the state who now should be able to cite this case for having their own foreclosures dismisse

Read the full article →

Ernan Roman: Manipulating Customer Service Ratings… What’s Going On?

February 9, 2011

I wanted to share two recent experiences with my family’s automobiles and the ensuing manipulation of the Customer Satisfaction process. A few months ago, we had one of our cars serviced. We were then told to fill out the Customer Satisfaction form with perfect scores for the Service department! Recently, we bought a new car. The experience left something to be desired, and I said so in the Customer Sat survey. Yesterday, the sales rep left a message on our home voicemail stating that she was very upset that I had not rated her well. She then blamed us for ruining her day! What’s going on? Do these major automotive companies have so little faith in their cars, dealers and service departments that they have to manipulate the process? Surely the manufacturers know this is going on. So why aren’t they taking action? Do manufacturers and dealers have a common goal of making the customer satisfaction ratings look good for advertising purposes? Back to my story. In the first instance, we had the car in for routine maintenance. The next day, we received a call from the dealer asking if everything went well. We said yes. The rep then told us that a survey was coming in the mail and that we should answer all the questions with a “5″ for satisfaction, as that would really help out the dealer. So much for the value of the service department customer sat data! Now for the story about the new car purchase. Everything was fine except when we picked up the car. This is always an exciting moment, but it was spoiled for my wife and I. First, our sales rep could not show us how to operate the brand new, high-tech navigation, climate control and surround-sound music systems, all of which were major selling points for this car. No one else was available to help. That left us frustrated and disappointed. Then, as we were at her desk signing the final documents, our sales rep and her associate had a heated argument about some office issues that had nothing to do with our purchase. We sat there in the middle of their verbal crossfire. Two weeks later, when the customer satisfaction questionnaire arrived by mail, it seemed to offer an anonymous response since my name wasn’t on it. I answered the questions and explained that this had not been an optimal experience. However, because our sales rep had emphasized that she wanted to get good ratings, I was much more diplomatic than I should have been. Imagine my reaction when my wife played the voicemail from the sales rep thanking me for having ruined her day and her ratings. How else can these companies improve except though customer feedback? And what about the implied confidentiality of the survey I returned? The Takeaways: Take a careful look at your customer satisfaction process. Are the questions the correct questions? Will they get you the “right” answers or the real answers? Are there opportunities for employees to manipulate the process, to get the “right” results? What is done with the results? Are they used internally to ask the tough questions and make changes, or are they fodder for advertising slogans and sales brochures? If your customer sat questionnaires say or imply that responses will be confidential, then honor that, so customers won’t feel punished for taking the trouble to submit honest feedback. Ernan Roman is President of the marketing consultancy, Ernan Roman Direct Marketing. Recognized as the industry pioneer who created three transformational methodologies: Integrated Direct Marketing, Opt-In Marketing, and Voice of Customer Relationship Research. Clients include Microsoft, NBC Universal, Disney, Hewlett-Packard and IBM. Ernan was named to “B to B’s Who’s Who” as one of the “100 most influential people” in Business Marketing by Crain’s B to B Magazine. His latest book on marketing best practices was published in October, 2010, and is titled: Voice of the Customer Marketing: A Proven 5-Step Process to Create Customers Who Care, Spend, and Stay . Ernan is also the co-author of “Opt-In Marketing: Increase Sales Exponentially with Consensual Marketing” and author of “Integrated Direct Marketing: The Cutting Edge Strategy for Synchronizing Advertising, Direct Mail, Telemarketing and Field Sales.” www.erdm.com ernan@erdm.com

Read the full article →

Learning To Walk: Fear, Shame And Your Underwater Mortgage

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Nearly one in every four homeowners across the country owe more on their home than it’s worth. Once a month, those 10.8 million are faced with a question that cuts to the core of the American Dream and offers a confusing collision between a deep-seated sense of personal obligation and a cold, simple business calculation: Should I pay my mortgage? For decades, there was only one answer for most people: Of course I should keep paying, it’s the right thing to do. Besides, the argument went, a home is a great investment. Today, in the wake of the most seismic housing collapse in the nation’s history, that logic has increasingly been challenged by homeowners despondent about their lack of options. Although researchers find that some underwater borrowers who could continue paying their mortgages strategically default anyway, the vast majority continue to pay. Many homeowners, out of a combined sense of fear, shame, courage and morality, resist making what is otherwise a logical financial decision. Walking away from a home, however, is more than the sum of a few business decisions. For many homeowners, it’s either an act of civic defiance against a system they no longer buy into or the end result of being shuffled around by institutions that don’t help them solve their financial problems. While walking away is a frightening and dangerous step into the unknown, millions have beaten the path in the past few years. To find out what it’s like to walk away, The Huffington Post asked readers who were considering making the move, or who had already done so, to write in and share their stories. That was in January 2010. A year later, we followed up with them to see how they reflected on the experience. We initially heard from 58 people from all over the country who fit the criteria. Ten of them have become unreachable over the past year, but the remaining 48 were eager to share their stories. A year later, only eight of them are still paying their mortgage. Some requested anonymity because of the shame associated with foreclosure; others requested it because they don’t want to draw retribution from the banks. But there were those who were happy to share their tales on the record. Almost universally, the homeowners we spoke with took personal responsibility for their situations, declining to blame the banks or politicians. Yet nearly all of them faced similar struggles in their attempts to work with their banks: lost paperwork and little interest in finding a financial compromise. The hostility people felt from their banks made the decision to walk away easier for many, and some now even revel in it, celebrating a break from a system they see as rigged against them. “We get daily calls from creditors and banks that threaten this and that, and I just laugh knowing I am helping to bring down the system that has brought us all down and continues to reap giant profits at the expense of the little guy,” said one. Others are still haunted with shame by the decision. Most said they felt a mix of both. Many of the homeowners said they felt alone and powerless in their interactions with the banks and were curious to hear what other people in similar situations had to say. “There should be support groups for people who have to deal with these banks,” said Richmond Burton, 50, a soon-to-be-former resident of Long Island’s East Hampton. “It can drive you crazy. I’m very good at dealing with pressure, and they made it feel like you’re at their mercy.” Following Burton’s suggestion, HuffPost contacted Meetup.com and set up the infrastructure for underwater homeowners to do just that. This coming Tuesday, homeowners across the country can use Meetup’s tool to organize small gatherings of homeowners who have walked away or who have considered doing it. Often, the best advice comes from a neighbor. Burton’s effort to get out from under his home became a second job, he said. “I never would have thought that the American Dream was to not own a home, but that’s what mine became. I’m not ever going to take another mortgage. If I can avoid it, I’m not ever going to borrow money again,” said Burton. After years of failing to get approval for a “short sale” of his home, or even a decent mortgage modification, Burton said he stopped paying in August 2009 to help himself financially and to get his bank’s attention. (A short sale occurs when lenders accept a sum less than the outstanding value than a mortgage loan, in lieu of forcing a borrower into foreclosure.) He contacted HuffPost several months later and said he was still trying to get a short sale approved or persuade the bank to take the house in exchange for simply letting him walk away. The bank was refusing. When we reconnected a year later, he said he had just signed documents that would let him walk away without a penalty, but he was forfeiting his $120,000 down payment. What did it feel like to walk away from that much money? “It feels great,” Burton said without hesitation. “I’m starting again. I’ve still got my talent, I’ve got my intelligence. I’ve got my health. At least I’m free of the enormous amount of stress that I had and the frustration of doing the best I could and it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t working. Ultimately, I made a decision that my physical and mental health was more valuable than this house and my investment in it.” Burton went more than a year without paying his mortgage before persuading the bank to accept a short sale. “The mortgage company was not wiling to work with me. The businesses that we have created to serve us are enslaving us. They’re not listening to us, they don’t even pretend to care about us. Really, our only option is to do what I’m doing, which is to fire them all. I’m doing everything I can to remove them from my life,” he said. Lenders and servicers say such decisions will destroy borrowers’ credit record and render them non-entities in the U.S. economy. Burton said that when he bought his Long Island home in 2000, his credit score had been somewhere in the 600s, an average figure. He allowed HuffPost to run his credit score through Equifax, one of three major credit-monitoring bureaus. As of Tuesday, after his ordeal of three years, his score is 614 — below average, but not savaged. A few months ago, he had no trouble buying an iPhone. He ignores the many credit card solicitations that come his way. The purpose of HuffPost’s investigation was not to determine who or what was to blame for the predicament that the homeowners found themselves in or whether they are deserving of sympathy — twin concerns that dominate the foreclosure discussion and will no doubt continue with ferocity in the comment section below this story. Our question was more direct: What are the costs and benefits of walking away from an underwater mortgage — not for the banks or the neighborhood or for society as a whole, but for the real people making the decision? MORAL STRUGGLE When Ernie Soto first wrote HuffPost, his mechanic business was falling apart and he was behind on his mortgage. Efforts to modify his loan had gone nowhere and he was considering filing for bankruptcy, walking away and buying a mobile trailer for his family to live in. “We laugh about it now, but we went through hell and back and back to hell,” he said a year later, after filing for bankruptcy and telling the bank it could have the house. Rock bottom came when he drove to the local vet to have his dog put to sleep. The repo man was in the parking lot. “I can’t leave until I take your truck,” he told Soto, 47. “It was just another low moment in our lives,” Soto said. Soto drained his savings paying the mortgage so he could keep his credit score high and maintain hope that a loan would come through for his small business. But it never did. Shortly after writing to HuffPost at the beginning of 2010, he and his family walked away. “We’d had enough. We moved to a trailer park, a mobile home. We bought my dad’s RV, figured we’ve gotta live somewhere.” Technically, Soto still owns his home and he routinely finds gigantic bills in his mail. At this point, he says, he can only chuckle darkly at the letters. The bank doesn’t seem to understand that he has walked away, that he’s done with them. Had he realized it would take his bank so long to foreclose, he said, he could have stayed in his house for free, but he was afraid that his bank would move faster than the guy who repossessed his truck. And didn’t want to put his family through the trauma of an eviction. “I was in unfamiliar territory. I don’t lose houses every so often,” he said. “I was thinking it’d be like the car, they’d come throw me out in three months.” Soto, a conservative Republican, said he has come to terms with his choice. “It was a tough decision. We thought about it and thought about it. I want to do the honorable thing, but wait a minute here — I didn’t get respect from the mortgage companies when I was asking for help. I didn’t get respect from the banks when I was asking for help. Now here we are, we bailed everybody out,” he said. “Am I just supposed to be the good Samaritan and just stay there? I asked the mortgage company, ‘What’s gonna keep me from giving you the keys?’” Banks are responding to that question by using their power in Washington — influence purchased with the checks people send to their banks each month — to make it financially tougher to liberate oneself from an underwater mortgage, just as millions are on the brink of making their break. ‘THERE IS SUCH A THING IN THE BIBLE’ Shelley Kluz said she saw a house in her neighborhood just like her own selling for $90,000. “It made me sick to my stomach, because we were already house-poor,” she said of the place she and her husband paid $325,000 for in 2004. Her husband, she said, wanted to cling to the house, but she wanted out, with three kids in a 960-square-foot home in Vacaville, Calif. “It was a big moral decision for us. We talked to our pastor, talked to our parents and had a really hard time coming to grips with the idea that we might not pay our mortgage, because we were always the people who paid their bills,” she said. The pastor said that if making the payments was harming the family, it was okay to walk away. “There is such a thing in the Bible as debt forgiveness,” she said. “We didn’t want to get in bad with God, doing something morally He thinks is awful.” In July 2009, on the informal advice of a bank representative, the Kluzes stopped paying their mortgage to encourage their bank to approve a short sale. The bank initially accepted a short sale offer, but the couple was told that investors had later rejected it. The bank suggested Shelley Kluz apply for a modification, apparently unaware she’d been trying for the past year. She did so anyway and was rejected. The family was still in the house when she wrote to HuffPost in early 2010. “We are in a weird limbo state of waiting. So, long story short, we are walking away. We are so fed up with this whole process,” she wrote at the time. Six months later, she and her family moved out, a year after they stopped paying. For $1,550, she said, they now rent a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a yard in the front and back — a feature their first home, with a monthly mortgage payment of $2,250, did not have. The new home is twice the size of the old one with twice as many bathrooms. Their old home was foreclosed upon a month after they left and, Shelley Kluz said, is still on the market for $142,000. They only moved five minutes away, she said, and she still drives by it occasionally. Her 7-year-old has taken it the hardest, having known no other home, she said, followed by her husband. “I think that’s just a guy thing,” she said. “I think he was more emotionally invested in the house because he spent a lot of his free time fixing it up. And then there was the whole stigma of being part of the foreclosure crisis.” “The American Dream, I don’t think that that’s really something that everyone should aspire to. There’s more to life than owning a home,” said the 37-year-old mother of three children. “This teaches you, what do you place value on? A piece of property? What things are really important?” Her family, she said, felt guilty about not upholding their end of the contract. “But that said, it was the best thing we could have done. Since we walked away, our house has only dropped further and we had no hope of getting out from under it,” she said. Now, “We actually have available spending money to do fun things with our family, we pay less money for a completely finished house, my kids have a backyard with grass, and best of all, we can breathe.” ‘PEOPLE SHOULDN’T FEEL ASHAMED’ Del Phillips stopped paying on his Chicago condo in November 2009, two months before he contacted HuffPost and 10 months after he lost his job. His short sale efforts were rejected and he was denied a modification because, according to a letter sent to him by his bank, his “unemployment is not of a permanent nature.” He was also rejected by Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program, he said. He took his story to the local press and was stunned at the vicious response from readers. “We encourage people to work hard, get an education and strive for things. But, when there’s a bump along the way and we need a helping hand for a short time, we’re spit at without any support,” he said. “For a country that touts its devout following of Christianity — which is rooted in the teachings of a Jesus who said to love thy neighbor and help thy brother and sister — it was really a fun lesson in hypocrisy.” And the reality was that every institution Philips dealt with — from the government to his bank — offered him no choice but to walk away. Phillips filed for bankruptcy and plans to move out in March, knowing he could be foreclosed on any moment. More than 15 months of paying only the condo association fees helped him get by during his jobless stretch. And the bank was right: his unemployment was not permanent. He found a job in October that will pay enough for him to afford to rent when he moves — this coming Saturday, 16 months after he stopped paying his mortgage. “I feel like we have a stigma on things like bankruptcy, but those people shouldn’t feel ashamed,” Phillips said. “Yes, some people abuse, like Teresa on ‘Real Housewives,’ but I’m hoping everyday people who are going through this can find some strength in what I’ve done and ask, ‘Why should I care about the bank if the bank doesn’t care about me?’” Despite his bankruptcy, he said, he has more offers for credit cards than he can handle. HAPPIER, BUT NOT PROUD Andrea of Oakland, Calif., who let her property go into foreclosure last year, says it was “clearly financially the thing to do.” After buying her first condo in the Oakland foothills, her property’s value dropped from $440,000 to $250,000 in just three years, and her marriage fell apart. “In terms of quality of life and emotional pressure, I’m much happier now,” said the 38-year-old Andrea, who didn’t want her last name used in this story. Now she pays $1,500 a month for an apartment in Rockridge, one of the East Bay’s most coveted areas. Its leafy streets and atmospheric cafes make it a particularly desirable neighborhood for singles. In some cases, the mortgage money not going to banks finds its way into the local economy and gives walk-aways an ability to breathe easier. “I bought groceries and not just a few bags, but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change,” says Zannah Becker, who stopped paying her mortgage in Seattle. “I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter.” Having worked as a loan assistant, Andrea told HuffPost she initially thought she’d be able to navigate the system. “I figured I would be well-equipped in my knowledge from my previous job about how to figure it out,” she said, “and I was shocked honestly at their level of disinterest — it was either disinterest on their part in working it out, or lack a of just being organized. But to me, them not being organized to work it out was a symptom of there not being a financial incentive for them to work it out.” When the bank finally foreclosed on her, Andrea said she just let it happen — she felt there was nothing else she could do. “I had gotten in over my head, and I had gone through a divorce, and I was struggling to re-balance my life financially,” she said. When asked if she had advice for homeowners in similar situations, she said people shouldn’t be afraid of walking away. “I think if someone is being responsible and trying to work it out, and they give it everything they can, then it’s okay to do what you have to do, like a business would,” she said. “A lot a lot of people are going through it right now, so maybe five or 10 years down the road, there won’t be so much stigma.” Still, she asked HuffPost to keep her full name a secret. “To be honest, it’s just embarrassing and not something I’m proud of,” she said. Shaming homeowners is one option for a bank dealing with someone who has made the calculation that they are better off walking, and that’s part of the pressure to stay that homeowners we spoke to felt. Homeowners also say they’ve felt little support from the federal government, particularly through its highly-touted, and largely ineffective, Home Affordable Mortgage Program, or HAMP. The Obama administration set up the program to help homeowners modify their mortgages but very little modification has occurred. In fact, HAMP may have been more helpful to banks than to homeowners A group of senior Treasury officials, which included Secretary Tim Geithner, admitted as much to financial bloggers at a meeting this summer. “Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole,” wrote one blogger of the meeting. “Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least…The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.” Politicians and the media tag-teamed homeowners thinking of walking away last summer. Republicans cited the Wall Street Journal in successfully pushing language through the House that would punish strategic defaulters. “The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to ‘buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…’ and go out to dinner more often,” reads an email from a top House floor staffer GOP offices. House Republican leadership in an e-mail to colleagues explaining the anti-strategic-default effort. The legislation didn’t become law, but it sent a signal. Fannie Mae, the government-owned titan of the mortgage industry, has also been ready to warn homeowners about their financial duties. “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, a Fannie executive, said in a June statement . Edwards said homeowners who strategically default or fail to work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure would be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. Freddie Mac, Fannie’s government-owned counterpart, has adopted the same policy. Fannie, in its statement, also warned it would pursue “deficiency judgments” in court that would allow it to recoup from borrowers the difference between the value of a home in foreclosure and the outstanding loan a bank still has on its books. After inflating the bubble until it burst, banks essentially now want to be insulated from their mistakes by dunning borrowers for every last penny. Deficiency judgments are allowed in 39 states and were a nagging concern to many of the homeowners we spoke to. The IRS may also loom over homeowners who walk away. Under current law, thanks to a measure spearheaded by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) in 2007, the IRS cannot come after homeowners after they walk away. Before that law took effect, if a bank took, say, a $200,000 hit on a foreclosed home and “forgave” the debt, that forgiveness would be counted as taxable income for the former homeowner. A note to the fence-sitters: Miller’s law expires at the end of 2012. FAMILY VALUES Ray Scott, 45, lives with his wife and two kids in Ferndale, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, where the house he bought for $140,000 five years ago is now worth $90,000. “Last year we were trying to figure out whether it would make sense to walk away from the house or not, considering we’re never going to make it back — at least not in my lifetime — the equity that we already lost,” he said. Scott mulled many options, including foreclosure and a short sale, but the bank wouldn’t approve a short sale and he feared walking away would ruin his credit. Scott said he ultimately decided it was in the family’s best interest to stay. With his wife in nursing school, she needed a good credit rating to qualify for student loans. “If we’d decided to let the home go into foreclosure, or tried to go through with a short sale, that would have had an immediate negative impact on her credit rating, and it would have made it really difficult for her to qualify for student loans,” Scott said. “I didn’t want her to be in that position, where she wouldn’t be able to finance her education.” Further, with both his sons recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Scott felt staying put and having a stable place for his kids was important. “We live in a good community,” he said. “There are good schools, good people, we know all our neighbors. People look out for each other here.” If not for the family concerns, Scott said he would have walked away in a heartbeat. “If it had just been myself and my wife, if the kids hadn’t been involved and she’d been all done with school, it would have been a really easy decision to make to walk away,” Scott said. “We’re so far under, we’re never going to recover the amount of money that we’ve already lost.” HOME IS HOME Kirk Arthur, a 43-year-old software sales manager from Miami, bought his house for $285,000 in 2008. At the time, he thought it was a steal: the house had been on the market for $450,000 only a year earlier. Now he estimates it’s worth just $150,000. “We figured the price couldn’t drop much lower,” Arthur told HuffPost. “Now we can’t foresee our condo appreciating even close to the $285,000 we paid for it two years ago.” Fortunately, Arthur said, he and his husband were able to negotiate with the bank to refinance their mortgage loan to a 4 percent interest rate, reducing their payments by $500 per month. He feels like things have turned out all right. “At the end of the day we were never in any danger of being homeless or even losing our home,” Arthur said in an email. “Yes, one of us lost our job during the hard times (me), but we managed through … I found a job within two weeks of getting laid off — twice. The job I have now is in line with my salary requirements. It’s sort of a happy ending.” Though the value of his home continues to drop, Arthur says he’s not interested in moving. It was hard to find a home that fit his needs and budget in an area where he wanted to live, Arthur said, and moving again would be expensive. “I’m not 25 years old, I’m 43,” he said, “I’ve got stuff.” What’s more, Arthur says that while property values in the area have dropped, the price of rentals has risen, minimizing any potential walkaway savings. But more than anything, it’s the idea of home that Arthur is unwilling to relinquish. “It comes from my parents,” he said of his desire to own. “Your home, your house is such a symbol of status, an important indication of where you are in life,” he added. “You can paint it, express yourself, make it your own … We’re happy in Miami.” FORECLOSURE AS THE NEW DIVORCE Jon Maddux is CEO of You Walk Away, a California-based company that helps homeowners navigate foreclosure. Founded in 2007, the company has assisted more than 4,000 people navigate foreclosure, according to its website. Maddux told HuffPost that fewer and fewer people are sobbing when they call for help. He said that’s because of growing cracks in the old chestnut that foreclosure victims are “financially irresponsible” or “deadbeats.” Same as what happened with divorce, he said. “People thought of it as horrific if someone was to get a divorce,” said Maddux. “And then, over the years, it was like, well, okay, they got divorced. It’s understandable because that’s what a lot of people do.” Some 60 to 70 percent of You Walk Away’s clients actually can afford their mortgage payments, Maddux says; most people just need assistance in handling an exceptionally-bad property investment. Maddux thinks renting is the future; statistics bear that out. According to U.S. Census data released this week, homeownership rates have dipped to their lowest level since 1998. “You can do whatever you need to do,” said Maddux of renting. “It’s important to be able to move if you find a job … in another city.” TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND Brian Shiro, 32, lives with his wife and 3-year-old son in Ewa Beach on Oahu, where he said the house he bought for $411,000 in October 2005 is now worth only around $250,000. Shiro, who said he earns a six-figure salary working as a geophysicist, says he can afford his mortgage, but half of his income goes to making the monthly payments. The bigger problem though, is the lack of freedom. He’d like to pursue other career opportunities, he says, but stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if he moves now. Shiro bets that in 10 or 15 years, his home will recover its value, but even that assumption is a gamble. In the meantime, he’s unhappy being trapped on the island. “I’ve had to turn down some job offers, I’ve had to reconsider educational opportunities,” says Shiro, who recently applied to a doctoral program in civil and environmental engineering in the San Francisco Bay Area. “All sorts of things that would advance my career would require relocation,” he said. What’s more, his wife is pregnant with their second child, and Shiro feels his family has outgrown the space. “A four-member family in a small town home is a little cramped,” he said. “It’s an aspect you don’t hear talked a lot about too is people who are playing by the rules, making the payments, but for whatever reason just want to try to get on with their lives and can’t because they’re stuck in a holding pattern.” PEER PRESSURE When he contacted HuffPost last year, Wayne King said he was trying to do a short sale on his house in Columbus, Ohio, which he’d bought in 2002 for $128,000. Six years later, in 2008, he left his job as a professor at Ohio State University for a new gig at a software company outside of Boston. The short-sale process hadn’t been going well, despite the new floors and carpets King said he and his wife had installed. “When I owe $107,000, I can’t afford to take $80,000,” he wrote, referring to the lowball offers he’d received. “I am up-to-date on my mortgage, but I don’t know how long I can afford to keep paying the mortgage along with utilities and upkeep in one state and rent in another state.” By then, King had already soured on the folk wisdom about homeownership. “People are fed this storyline that buying a home is the best investment you can make,” he wrote. “Something that will always appreciate and never lose value, but buying a home has been the worse investment I have ever made.” His attempts at a short sale didn’t pan out. King said this year that his lender appraised the home at a level nobody would pay. He said he looked into renting the place out, but discovered that at the going rate for rents, he’d still be losing money. He can afford to continue paying the mortgage, but doing so would squeeze the family finances — he said he and his wife just had a baby — so now he’s ready to walk away. King is trying to do a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which is a process similar to a formal foreclosure but widely believed to be less damaging to a homeowner’s credit. His understanding, after speaking to his bank and to counselors from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is that he needs to be delinquent by at least one month for this to work. Then, he said, his bank told him it will take five months or more for the process to finish up. (HUD’s guidelines say a DIL should not take more than 90 days and that current borrowers can still be eligible.) “It’s this hopeless situation where there’s nothing I can do except sit on my hands while these four or five late payments end up on my credit report,” he said. Every month the deed-in-lieu process continues, the Big Three credit-monitoring bureaus will hear from the bank that King is delinquent, and they’ll plug that info into their proprietary algorithms for determining his credit score, which will sink lower and lower. King, a mathematician who works for a company that creates algorithms, is frustrated that his credit score is calculated in a secret way and that it’s impossible for him to know exactly how much lower the score will go. King’s algorithmic background makes him particularly sensitive to the vicissitudes of his credit score, but everyone else in the pack also spoke either with concern about their score or relief that they had been able to let go of it — like a Taoist on the path to a higher state of being. There’s a practical reason for that: a low score makes credit harder to access and life harder to live. But it’s also part of the reality that a low score will destroy someone’s personal finances. A spokeswoman for Experian, one of the Big Three credit reporting bureaus, said there’s no way to know exactly how badly any given financial decision will hurt a person’s credit score, or even if a deed-in-lieu will be better than a foreclosure. “There are hundreds of different credit scores out there in the marketplace,” the spokeswoman said. “Credit scores analyze the information from an individual’s credit report, and no single factor can be considered in isolation. For that reason, any given item can have a different point impact for each individual, even when the scoring system used is exactly the same. It’s not a formula, such as ‘Two delinquencies plus a foreclosure plus seven accounts all in good standing equal this score.’ It’s much more complex, and that’s why we really can’t provide an exact point value for a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, a short sale, foreclosure or a bankruptcy.” Meanwhile, King’s ongoing mortgage mess is an occasional topic of water cooler discussion at the office. “It’s embarrassing for me because I have to work in a very educated, more well-off environment, because most of the people I work with have Ph.D.s and probably make far above the median income,” he said. “So to be in the position where you’re — they’re constantly asking about the house. They all knew I had a house I was trying to sell.” While concerned about his credit score, King doesn’t want to feel like a deadbeat, either. “I’ve always paid my debts. It’s something that’s instilled in you,” he said. “You get it from the media. I was just watching Kudlow not that long ago and he was harping on the obligation to pay your debts. It just kind of permeates.” LET THEM EAT CAT FOOD CNBC anchor and noted oligarch Larry Kudlow articulated the mainstream position against strategic defaulters in a May column on CNBC.com. “[J]ust because a home loan is ‘underwater’ — meaning its value is lower than today’s current market price — why should a responsible person whine about it and walk away?” Kudlow wrote. “Why not service this loan for the longer term and wait for prices to improve? That’s called personal responsibility.” This is in keeping with received wisdom about the evils of foreclosure. As Brent White of the University of Arizona’s law school noted in an October paper, “the predominant message of political, social, and economic institutions in the United States has functioned to cultivate fear, shame, and guilt in those who might contemplate foreclosure.” One can think of keeping the strategic default rate low — White’s paper put it between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent — as a slow-drip bank bailout. With rescued banks now profitable yet refusing to modify underwater mortgages, the widespread fear that prevents more strategic defaults “has led to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate financial burden from the housing collapse,” White wrote. In other words, homeowners who shy from strategic default are collectively doing Wall Street and the banking system another favor — beyond just footing the bank-bailout bill as taxpayers. Yet the moral argument is out of sync with some basic financial logic. As White sees it, plummeting home prices mean: “Millions of U.S. homeowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by strategically defaulting on their mortgages.” Data suggest that wealthier Americans, not those with lower or mid-range incomes, have a greater proclivity for punting their mortgage obligations by embracing strategic defaults. The New York Times reported in July that more than one in seven homeowners with loans of more than $1 million are seriously delinquent, compared with one in 12 homeowners who owe less than $1 million. It’s a stat analysts chalk up to strategic default. “The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist, told the Times. So are some big, well-heeled corporations. For example, investment bank and bailout recipient Morgan Stanley walked away from five San Francisco office buildings at the end of 2009. Real-estate company Tishman Speyer — which also leases space to HuffPost for its Washington, D.C. office — strategically defaulted on the biggest residential property deal ever in January 2010, around the same time Wayne King and others were pulling their hair out over whether they should do the same. And the Mortgage Bankers Association, lobbyists for mortgage lenders, walked away from their own headquarters in Washington, D.C. in February 2010. (The MBA did not respond to requests for comment for this story.) Peter Fredman, a foreclosure defense attorney in California, said he was getting so many calls from people who wanted to sue over their exploding interest-only mortgages that he decided to set up a “strategic default” calculator online as a public service. Instead of suing some penniless broker, he kept having to suggest, why not just walk away? “Ironically, a lot of people who feel that special obligation [to pay a mortgage] are the people in the worst position,” Fredman said. “Upper-class people, they have no problem with what’s going on. They have bigger considerations.” Fredman’s website puts it like this: “From the institutional lenders’ point of view, you should eat cat food and take your kids out of school before you stop making your mortgage payment. But that is because institutional lenders don’t eat or have kids. They are fictitious entities, constitutionally dedicated solely to the pursuit of money. Repaying your debts may be a matter of personal integrity that you may or may not be able to afford. But you have no moral obligation [to] the financial institutions because they do not operate in a moral universe.” ‘WE KNEW THESE PEOPLE’ Howell Ellerman teaches real-estate classes at Folsom Lake College in Folsom, Calif. Last fall, a student in his thirties asked Ellerman about the meaning of financial responsibility and the hard realities of home ownership in the wake of the housing meltdown. “He’s in a house that is $500,000 underwater. I think they bought it for $1 million,” recalled Ellerman, 51. “He asked me in front of the whole class, ‘Should I walk away from my house?’” “I can’t give you advice,” Ellerman said he told his student, “but in the world we live in, there isn’t a better time to walk away. You shouldn’t feel any compunction.” Ellerman himself had been prepared to walk away from the home where he and his wife and kids had lived for 12 years. They wanted to buy a bigger house 10 miles away asking $595,000 as a short sale after initially listing at $1.5 million. “We made an above-asking price offer and are now in contract to buy the house and move with our five kids there,” Ellerman wrote. “The question is what do we do with our current house, which we love and have taken great care of.” He wrote that they wanted to sell or rent out the previous house but were willing to walk away and take the credit hit if the bank wouldn’t cooperate. It didn’t — Ellerman said the bank initially approved them on a loan for the new house but then decided to foreclose on it instead, so they’re still in their old house. It sits on a cul-de-sac with 10 others. Ellerman said four emptied in the past few years. He’s certain two are foreclosures. He has no idea where any of the families went; he figures they couldn’t handle the shame. “Seriously, we knew these people. They’d been over for Christmas, and then all of a sudden we see the U-Haul truck pull up,” he said. “When people leave their houses they don’t even say goodbye. They leave like in the cloak of darkness in a U-Haul truck and you don’t even know where they go.” THE AMERICAN DREAM When Bob Balint of Sarasota, Fla., wrote to HuffPost last year, he was asking for advice rather than looking to tell his story. We told him to consult with a lawyer — good advice to anybody thinking of walking away — and he did. Balint, 55, a father of two, is a dispatcher for the local transit system, and his wife teaches young children. He said their combined income of $51,000, boosted by occasional overtime, was enough to make their mortgage payments. But overtime has given way to furloughs and their house, which they owe $225,000 on, is falling apart. Balint lives in a part of the country particularly ravaged by the housing collapse and similar houses nearby are going for as little as $40,000, he said. “It’s like buying a Lexus,” he said. “You can almost come up with that in cash. Gimme two years without paying every Tom, Dick and Harry that I owe and I’ll have it.” The Balints were late on a few payments through 2010 but made them up each time. “We’re hanging in there by hook and crook,” he said. After a year of wrestling with the decision, however, the Balints are finally pulling the ripcord. This January, they made their last mortgage payment. They’re walking away from the home they’ve lived in since 1994 to rent a better, cheaper place. He’s looking forward to the freedom that will come with renting. “You’re almost better off not owning. If you’re company buckles up, you’re stuck, you can’t move to the jobs,” Balint said. “The American Dream is for shit.”

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Never Be Ripped off by Credit Cards Again

February 2, 2011

Use the credit card companies and don’t let them use you! It is unnecessary for anyone to ever find themselves the victim of their credit cards. Because the current credit card industry is under tremendous attack by things like the CARD Act Implementation, competition, and the threat of a shift from plastic to mobile credit, the smart consumer is in a great position today if they know how to play the game. While credit cards have gotten a bad reputation for victimizing people with late fees, penalties, and high interest rates, the informed customer is in a position to turn the tables. Here are some secrets to help you take advantage of the credit card companies rather than having them take advantage of you. 1) Be in Control: Most people get a credit card as victims and agree to being taking advantage of. Reverse this by making your decision to only use them for their convenience factor without paying to do so. I never pay interest, sign up fees or late fees on a card — I use them. They don’t use me. 2) Pay Off the Balance in Full: I never carry a balance with the credit card company no matter how attractive the rate. If you can’t pay it off at the end of the month, don’t use it. This doesn’t take just commitment, but it takes an agreement from everyone in the family that credit cards are only used as an accounting device, its convenience, and only when you can pay it off. 3) Negotiate your rate: If you are going to have a recurring balance, which I don’t recommend, call and negotiate directly with the company. You have every right, and should, call and ask to have the advertised rate lowered. Also, the better your credit and payment history, the better your chances of selling this to them. 4) Customize Your Due Date: Let’s say your paycheck comes on the 15th and 30th, but your credit card bill is due on the 5th. To improve your cash flow and not put yourself under unnecessary pressure, coordinate the due date that best fits your cash flows. You don’t need stellar credit to make this call and ask for the change. 5) Ask to Have a Late Fee or Interest Fee Removed: If you have a good history of on-time payments and then find a late fee or interest fee on the statement because you didn’t get your payment in by the due date this time, ask that it be removed. I have done this successfully on over a dozen occasions. Ask for mercy that they remove the fee to reward you for your past good behavior. If the person you speak with can’t do it, ask for a supervisor and make it clear that you are willing to close the card out if they don’t remove it. 6) Negotiate the Annual Fee: There is tremendous competition for your business today. There’s no reason for you to pay for the use of a credit card. Even a $35 fee a year over a period of 5 years is $175. I’d personally much rather spend that on my wife. Tell the issuer that you want to use their card but don’t want to pay the fee. Chances are they won’t want to lose your business. While credit cards can be seen to victimize people they can also be an asset when used correctly. They provide convenience, act as the perfect accounting for expenses, accumulate travel points and cost you nothing. As long as you can be aware and responsible of how you make use of your credit cards, you’ll find that they can be great assets to your life. With estimates of over 1 billion Visa, Mastercards and Amex cards in circulation just in the US, it would be important that you make a decision to use your credit cards to benefit your household rather than participating in the credit card company victimizing you. Grant Cardone is a NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert.

Read the full article →

Senator Jeff Merkley: Rethink Obama’s Foreclosure Program

February 2, 2011

It’s time to take another look at HAMP, Senator Jeff Merkley told MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan. Senator Jeff Merkley, D – OR, said he had spoken to several families in his state who thought their loans were being reworked as part of the Home Affordable Modification Program and dutifully made reduced payments, before discovering out they were being foreclosed on anyway. (Video below.) “Fees start to pile up, so the servicer starts to make a lot of money off fees that they don’t make when a family is making their payments,” said Senator Merkley, speaking on the Dylan Ratigan Snow on MSNBC. The lender is under no obligation to do the full modification that would assist a family in the end, said Merkley, and often didn’t. “It does seem like something’s gone terribly awry.” “It’s a mess,” Terry Garwood told the MSNBC host. “And I can’t believe that it’s legal.” Terry, and his wife Bea, made lowered mortgage payments for nine months on a trial basis before being told they did not qualify for the program. “They went into a foreclosure immediately when we signed up for this, which they didm’t clue us in on either.” Bea and Terry Garwood’s story was brought to light by the Huffington Post . Reporter Arthur Delaney told Dylan Ratigan theirs was a common problem. “The federal auditors of the program have said repeatedly that this is something that can actually happen either you’ll waste money trying to go after this trial modification will never happen, or in the worst case scenario, you weren’t even seriously delinquent in the first place, then as a result of making these payments for a long period of time, you’re totally delinquent and you’re losing your house,” he said. Last week, Republicans in the House introduced a bill that would end HAMP. “The Dylan Ratigan Show” is running a weeklong “No Way To Live” series on the financial crisis and its impact on ordinary Americans, in partnership with The Huffington Post . Check back here regularly for new posts in the series. WATCH the vide below: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy

Read the full article →

Watchdog: Justice Thomas Failed To Report Wife’s Income

January 23, 2011

Reporting from Washington — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife’s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday. Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.

Read the full article →

Video: Petraeus Plans Focus on Online Scams, Military Victims

January 7, 2011

Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) — Elizabeth Warren, the White House adviser assigned to set up a U.S. consumer financial-protection bureau, and Holly Petraeus, appointed by Warren to establish an office within the consumer agency dedicated to military personnel and their families, talk about protecting service members from consumer fraud. Petraeus is the wife of Army General David Petraeus. They speak with Lizzie O’Leary on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Will Banks and JP Morgan Chase Be More Ethical in the Coming Year?

December 24, 2010

Tis’ the season to be jolly. Er.. if you’re a Wall Street banker, that is, where billions in end-of-year bonuses are about to rain down like manna from heaven. Wall Street is the one place in America where the economic downturn has not reached. Over the holiday period flashy Ferraris will be fired up and driven off showroom floors. The Hamptons will emerge from a deep winter thaw, warmed by the fires of credit cards working at such a feverish pace that plastic will be hard-pressed not to melt. Oh yes, happy days are here again. If only the prophet Amos were alive to see it, he might have proclaimed, “Let champagne flow like a river; Don Perignon like a mighty spring.” King David would likewise have cheered, “Yay, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of unemployment, I shall fear no recession, for my government bailouts are with me… My cash runneth over.” OK, ok. So I sound a little bit envious. I confess. But only a little. I do not begrudge the success of my Wall Street brothers. Not because I have mastered jealousy but because I make a living counseling people whose lives are in crisis. And I’ve discovered that the only thing that buys happiness on this earth is a life lived as a blessing to others. Excessive consumption is naught by a manifestation of the black hole at our center and the human need to fill it with an endless supply of adult toys (OK, calm down. I mean, of course, the more respectable, if somewhat infantile, adult toys of the car, yacht, and plane variety). Not that there aren’t many Wall Street bankers who fill their lives with virtue rather than Hermes. Many of my former Oxford students run hedge funds and work on the street. The majority of them make money to give it away to the needy around the world and support their families in dignity. They reject conspicuous consumption, live faith-based lives, and are communally engaged. But they might just be the exception that proves the rule. There can be little doubt that the success of the banking industry is critical to the success of the overall American economy. But that success dare not be made off the backs of hard-working Americans. Let them Wall Street traders be paid a king’s ransom. Let them eat cake. But when government bailouts are chiefly responsible for their astronomical profits, then they better make darn sure that the spigot is not suddenly turned off for desperate homeowners who need modifications to stay in their homes. I used to have a much higher opinion of Wall Street and indeed, as I wrote above, many of my closest friends are bankers. But a series of unfortunate incidents soured me, nearly all of them with JP Morgan Chase and its subdivision Bear Stearns. I have earlier written of Bear Stearns’ losing about forty percent of my retirement savings and then trying to triple charge me with fees when another trader moved the money into mutual funds. Wow. You’d think that after everything my wife and I had been through they would at least not try and gouge me. I shared how an old and influential friend at the bank then told me that any attempt to recover the paltry $3900 I had requested, amid losses of tens of thousands, due to consequences of the triple-charging on the part of the young trader, would be labeled extortion. Bigger wow! If you complain they threaten you? Nobody likes to be threatened or bullied so I had no choice but to sue Bear Stearns. I have tried to settle the suit. Bear is offering a pittance. Still I indicated a willingness to accept the small sum to simply put the matter behind me. This was never about money but about a regular person showing Wall Street that they can’t simply push us around. But the draconian confidentiality terms Bear is demanding is making even a small settlement difficult. As a writer, broadcaster, and columnist, I talk about the state of the economy and the state of our banks as an important barometer of the overall health of our nation’s values. And it seems to me that rather than large institutions like Bear Stearns try to gag people from being critical, especially when it is the only remedy available to us given our weakness in taking on multi-billion dollar institutions, it is better to correct their inner culture to act fairly and ethically in the first place. The New York Times Magazine recently ran a cover story that seemed like a puff piece on JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon entitled, “America’s Least-Hated Banker.” (That’s what passes for a compliment for bankers today.) I would like to believe that he’s a good guy. Perhaps he is the genius they say he is (though I was startled to see writer Roger Lowenstein disclose halfway through the piece that “my mother is friendly with Dimon’s parents.” I kind of wondered why he was selected him to write the profile.) But to prove it, Dimon must demonstrate that he is changing the culture at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Chase and that he gets that while it’s nice to make bucket loads of money and afford the luxuries of life, it’s even more important to uphold the highest ethical standards while doing so. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is founder of This World: The Values Network, an organization dedicated to promoting universal Jewish values in the culture. The international best-selling author of 24 books, his most recent work is “Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Read the full article →

Michael Sinensky: A Small Business Owner’s Wish List To Santa

December 24, 2010

Dear Santa, This is Michael Sinensky. I’m 31 years old and live in a two-bedroom apartment in Union Square, NYC with my wife and two amazing children who allow us to sleep an average of three hours a night. I’ve always been an entrepreneur: I sold school supplies in elementary school, ran a candy mafia ring in high school with eight kids reporting to me, and threw parties in my friend’s basement with a cover charge. It has taken all that experience plus another ten years of professional experience to settle into my business of running a group of restaurants and bars. Presently, I have a company that employs approximately 300 employees, a team of individuals I’m so thankful for. We both know times are extremely tough, kind of like that movie about when you called Fred Claus when you had the board watching over you, discussing cuts, shutting you down, etc. Well, I feel the same way now with local, state and federal government so I hope you can feel my pain. I’ve put together my wish-list and promise to leave milk and cookies out for you — is it ok if I leave them with my doorman (Alex or Danny) as we and most New Yorkers don’t have a chimney? In any event, let me know what you can do. Sincerely, Michael Sinensky

Read the full article →

Unemployment Checks Will Not Arrive Until January For Some

December 21, 2010

Ken Watson said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services notified him Sunday that on Monday he’d receive the unemployment checks Congress kept from him with its dithering the past two weeks. “I didn’t know what they were gonna do,” said Watson, a 46-year-old laid-off IT contractor with five kids in Batavia, Ohio. “I didn’t really count on it coming back.” More than a million people relying on federally-funded extended unemployment benefits had their checks interrupted after Congress allowed the benefits to lapse at the end of November, according to the National Employment Law Project. The federal benefits, which in some states give 73 weeks of aid to people who exhaust 26 weeks state benefits, were reauthorized last week after President Obama cut a deal with Republicans to attach continued help for the jobless to a reauthorization of tax cuts for the rich. When he signed the bill on Friday, Obama said the unemployed were in luck because “states can move quickly to reinstate their benefits — and we expect that in almost all states, they’ll get them in time for Christmas.” Rich Hobbie, director of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, told HuffPost that some long-term jobless will not receive missed payments until next year. Most will be paid in the next two weeks. “The bottom line is many states will have payments out by December 25,” Hobbie said. “Some states already have payments out. And there are a minority of states whose benefit payments will spill over into January.” George Wentworth of the National Employment Law Project told HuffPost that the people most likely to be left hanging until January are the folks whose 26 weeks of state benefits expired before they could start the first “tier” of federally-funded Emergency Unemployment Compensation. “The vast majority of states are paying this week and next,” he added. HuffPost readers: Left hanging until next week or longer? Tell us about it — email arthur@huffingtonpost.com . Please include your phone number if you’re willing to do an interview. Watson told HuffPost earlier this month he was “shocked” to discover that his $300 weekly lifeline, which he’d expected to last until January, prematurely stopped on Dec. 4. He said his wife was still working part-time and that his family’s Christmas wouldn’t be spoiled by the unemployment cutoff, but he worried his youngest might not understand. “My two younger kids I really have to worry about because they believe in Santa Claus,” he said. He praised the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services for a smooth handling of the lapse in federal benefits. He did not praise the U.S. Congress, calling it “dirty politics” to leave the unemployed hanging to win tax cuts for the rich. “That was crazy,” he said. “That was totally uncalled for.”

Read the full article →

Mary Bottari: Trapped in Bank of America Hell

December 15, 2010

Are you one of the lucky ones? Have a good job, live in a nice neighborhood, enjoy your cozy home? Think foreclosure only impacts the reckless or the unemployed? Think again. George Mahoney worked and saved and built his cozy colonial-style home in Lynnfield, Massachusetts in 1981. There, he and his wife raised three lovely daughters. For many years, the Mahoneys paid down their relatively small mortgage with their local bank — a division of Bank of America (BofA). In 2007, they took out a second mortgage to help a daughter start a small business. Two wage earners, a great credit record — the loan was a breeze. That was when the trouble began. About a year after getting the second mortgage, BofA started notifying George that his payments were late. Soon they jacked his credit card interest rates from seven percent to twenty-eight percent. Next, they ruined his credit record. His Sears card dropped from a $10,000 limit to a $500 dollar limit. Then one day in the fall of 2009, BofA initiated foreclosure on the house he had built and owned for 28 years. The only problem? The Mahoneys had never missed a single payment on either their first or second mortgage. Initially, George thought the problem would be easy to fix. He went down to his local branch to get help, but the local employees were rebuffed by corporate headquarters. So he started getting a receipt for each mortgage payment and faxing it to BofA headquarters. He also started the first of thousands of calls. Usually, BofA staff would readily concede that he was right. But even if they initiated a “fix” it never lasted more than 90 days, when the saga would start over again. In the last few years, he has received foreclosure notices twice – most recently in October 2010. “Banks shouldn’t be allowed to ruin people’s lives this way. My stress level for the past year and a half has been a 10 and my wife is a wreck,” George explained. His wife Marianne confirms the toll the trial has taken on the family. “The whole thing is a nightmare. The stress we live under is unbearable and it’s embarrassing too. No one can help us, no one can do anything and it’s ruined our credit. I have always been proud to have perfect credit,” she adds, the strain evident in her voice. After receiving a foreclosure notice in October, hiring a lawyer to send urgent letters to BofA and even after repeated talks with top-level staff in the office of BofA President and CEO, Brian Moynihan, the Mahoneys are still in jeopardy. Bank of America Fraudclosure Central? Recently released data from the Federal Reserve shows that BofA received almost one trillion dollars ( $931 billion ) in taxpayer assistance during the financial crisis. The Fed has also been investigating snowballing allegations of fraud in the foreclosure process, allegations that include false notarizations, false affidavits, accounting fraud, abusive fees, false practice of the law and more. Fed Board Governor Daniel Tarullo told Congress that the problems identified “raise significant reputation and legal risk for the major mortgage servicers… requiring immediate remedial action.” But will it come in time to aid the Mahoneys? The Mahoney’s experience indicts what endemic accounting problems at BofA. Payments are misapplied constantly and the default position is abusive foreclosure. The bank reports some 1.3 million customers behind on their payments, but can regulators trust any data coming out of BofA? How many of these people are trapped in the same hell as the Mahoneys? In a lengthy interview with the New York Times this weekend, Brian Moynihan reviews his first year as BofA chief. “I feel proud of what we have done,” he said. “You never want to have a customer feel that something isn’t right.” But given BofA’s track record, Moynihan’s cheerful “there is not a better job in the world!” tenor strikes a surreal note. Help May Be on the Way On Tuesday, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, leader of the 50-state task force on mortgage fraud, met with more than 100 people from 15 states. In the crowd were representatives from community, faith, and labor organizations, foreclosure victims and struggling homeowners from across the country. Led by the feisty folks at PICO National Network, National People’s Action and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, the participants presented Miller with hundreds of case files documenting foreclosure fraud, abuse and plain malfeasance. The group burst into a spontaneous round of applause when Miller said in no uncertain terms: “we will put people in jail.” Miller also said he supports a settlement with the big banks that requires significant principle reductions, loan modifications, and compensation for victims — key demands of the community groups. As the holiday’s approach, too many Americans will be losing their homes because of hard times. An untold number will be losing their home due to the fraudulent behavior and stark indifference of the nation’s largest bailout-out banks. Let’s hope the Mahoneys are not among them.

Read the full article →

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

December 11, 2010

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

Read the full article →

Bailouts Are For Banks: Unemployed People Get Zilch

December 1, 2010

In Washington, the agenda has long since moved on from bailing out megabanks to figuring out how to stop paying for things that regular people need — luxuries like health care, retirement benefits and unemployment insurance. In the suburbs of Denver, Anthony Roebuck and his family find themselves confronting an action list that seems cruelly divorced from the proceedings in the nation’s capital: They have to figure out how to keep the heat on through the Colorado winter now that his unemployment check has run out. The latest extension of emergency unemployment benefits expired on Tuesday, as a dysfunctional Congress let the deadline go without striking a deal to keep the money flowing. That put Roebuck — who drew his last check on Monday — among the two million or so unemployed Americans facing the imminent loss of their benefits between now and the end of the year. A sheet metal worker by trade, Roebuck, 44, is accustomed to earning his own way through the force of his hands. Since May, he and his family have subsisted on his wife’s paycheck from her job as a university administrator, plus a nearly $500 weekly unemployment check. They slashed away at their grocery bill, cutting out non-essentials such as the fried snacks favored by his 15-year-old son. They traded in their late-model Jeep Cherokee for an elderly Dodge sedan. They quit going to church on Sunday to save the gas money required to get there. Now, the math is set to get uglier still, as they contemplate how to run the household minus his unemployment check — a situation that seems not only impossible but also unfair. How could there have been so many billions for Wall Street, so much room to lower taxes for people with golf memberships and country houses, yet a $500-a-week check to help him pay the rent while he looks for another job suddenly threatens to bankrupt the nation? “It’s like a gut shot,” he says. “I get really upset when I think about it. I have to watch my words or I’m liable to get profane.” Perhaps even more disturbing than the callousness governing the political process is how so many powerful people in Washington are now competing to take credit for depriving the economy of meaningful relief. In the political calculus of the moment, exacerbating the troubles of the most vulnerable has become a pragmatic way to curry favor. Republicans in Congress have held up the extension of unemployment benefits and are also demanding an extension of the tax cuts President George W. Bush handed out to the wealthiest Americans. They are selling this as a stand against fiscally reckless spending and oversized government — a form of pandering that poses dire consequences to the economy. Unlike wealthy people handed tax cuts, laid-off workers receiving unemployment checks tend to inject nearly all of that money directly into the economy, leaving their dollars at the local supermarket, the hardware store, and the auto repair shop, supporting jobs for people who work at those places. Cutting off those checks deprives the economy of cash just as the market is showing tentative signs of improvement. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has become so captive to the budget-cutting-as-progress mantra ruling Washington that it is taking a victory lap for diminishing the costs of the federal bailouts — even as the savings come at the direct expense of the only piece of its rescue package that was designed to aid regular people: its anti-foreclosure program. Earlier this week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released an analysis showing that the administration would spend only about $12 billion of the $50 billion that had been dedicated under the primary bailout funds for its signature anti-foreclosure program. This, even as the foreclosure crisis shows no sign of abating. When President Obama announced the program amid great fanfare early last year, he declared that help was on the way for somewhere between three to four million American homeowners who would now be given a chance to lower their monthly payments. But through October, fewer than 500,000 distressed homeowners were making lower payments under the program. The reasons for this abysmal record are many: From its inception, the program has been a fiasco. The giant banks that send out monthly mortgage bills and collect the money for the investors who generally own the notes have repeatedly lost documents sent in by applicants seeking relief. They have forced troubled homeowners to endure interminable stints on hold, waiting to be handed the latest conflicting instruction from another bank representative. They have been told that the good people at Bank of America or J.P. Morgan Chase — to pick on two giants — would love to give them a break, but the greedy investors who own their mortgages will not go along, even though the opposite is often true: The clueless investors, who would be better served by loan alterations that cut their losses, are kept in the dark while the big banks drag out the foreclosure process, capturing fees by funneling orders for fresh appraisals and title searches that they funnel through their own subsidiaries. And even the supposed success stories– the homeowners who have navigated through the rat’s nest of ineptitude and deceit to come out with loan modifications — do not represent a fix to the fundamental problem. Lower payments have come through lowering interest rates and extending the life of the loans, not by writing down the size of the outstanding balances. With millions of people now owing more to the bank than their homes are worth, many have given up and stopped mailing checks to their lender. Many housing experts have argued that the only effective way to curb foreclosures would be to force the mortgage companies to write down loan balances. But the Obama administration, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has consistently shot down the idea of forcing the banks to swallow write-downs, because someone would have to pay the costs. Perhaps the banks, perhaps the taxpayer, and probably both. “This is a conscious choice we made, not to start with principal reduction,” Geithner said late last year, while testifying before a panel convened by Congress to keep tabs on the federal bailouts. “We thought it would be dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer.” This, from the same man who played a leading role in putting hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money on the line to rescue Wall Street. In an interview Wednesday, Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial stability, Tim Massad, said the department still planned to expend the full share of bailout funds on its anti-foreclosure effort, disputing the Congressional Budget Office’s projection. But he acknowledged that, from inception, the administration’s program was limited by a reluctance to spend taxpayer funds too aggressively. He said Treasury was also confined by Congress in not being able to force mortgage companies to give homeowners relief. The result: a voluntary program that depends upon taxpayer-financed cash incentives for banks, one that has moved too slowly. “We’re not getting as many mods as we hoped,” Massad said, referring to loan modifications. “But we still have two years.” These days, this seems like the only policy imperative with currency in Washington: keeping the lid on costs, and never mind the needs of a nation still grappling with the terrible effects of the recession. Abdication of responsibility has somehow become a political virtue, a sign of fiscal toughness and even moral rectitude. This is the spirit at work in the deficit-cutting plan released Wednesday by the president’s bipartisan commission, which takes aim at Social Security and Medicare spending yet still lowers tax rates. Contrast the new austerity for retirees, laid-off workers, and homeowners facing foreclosure with the unbridled generosity lavished upon corporate American during the worst days of the financial crisis. As the Federal Reserve on Wednesday reluctantly opened the books on how it distributed some $3.3 trillion in aid during the crisis, it became clear that the central bank was basically taking over lousy investments from all comers. Even foreign banks were able to avail themselves of the Fed’s cash, selling toxic assets to the central bank at prices the market never would have paid. Such was the necessary price of staving off the financial apocalypse that might have resulted had the wrath of the market been allowed to carry on — this, we are told repeatedly by the people in charge. The money had to be handed out swiftly and indiscriminately. Fair enough, maybe so, but we have also been told that, eventually, the repairing of the financial system would lead to the healing of the broader economy, and then those facing foreclosure because they are out work would no longer have to worry. Then the millions of jobless people would see their lives restored. And not only has that not happened, but each time the unfortunate human leftovers of the recession have found themselves in need of help just to keep the lights on, we are told (by the same people who spared no expense for the banks) that there is nothing left to give them. Now is the time to get serious about putting our fiscal house in order. The bailout window is closed. Anthony Roebuck does not want a bailout. He wants a job. He spent the summer in a state-financed training program, learning how to construct solar and wind power farms. He is willing to work in renewable energy, though those jobs pay as little as $8 an hour compared to the $23 an hour he brought home from his last position, installing heating and air conditioning systems. And still, no one wants him, knowing that he will up and leave once the higher-paying jobs come back. He has been hitting construction sites, two and three a day, in search of work. And still he is unemployed. He was offered a possible job in Utah, but moving there would entail giving up his wife’s paycheck and pulling his son out of high school. So he is instead becoming expert in a new facet of the American experience, shuffling bills he cannot pay and hoping better days come soon. “Until I can get to work we’re going to be juggling between the light bill and the heat bill,” he says. “What can be late? What can’t be late? What can we skip?”

Read the full article →

PHOTOS: The Latest Recession Trend – Ridiculously Small Houses

November 29, 2010

GRATON, Calif.:(By Terence Chea, AP) As Americans downsize in the aftermath of a colossal real estate bust, at least one tiny corner of the housing market appears to be thriving. To save money or simplify their lives, a small but growing number of Americans are buying or building homes that could fit inside many people’s living rooms, according to entrepreneurs in the small house industry. (SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTOS OF THE LATEST BATCH OF SMALL HOMES) Some put these wheeled homes in their backyards to use as offices, studios or extra bedrooms. Others use them as mobile vacation homes they can park in the woods. But the most intrepid of the tiny house owners live in them full-time, paring down their possessions and often living off the grid. “It’s very un-American in the sense that living small means consuming less,” said Jay Shafer, 46, co-founder of the Small House Society, sitting on the porch of his wooden cabin in California wine country. “Living in a small house like this really entails knowing what you need to be happy and getting rid of everything else.” Shafer, author of “The Small House Book,” built the 89-square-foot house himself a decade ago and lived in it full-time until his son was born last year. Inside a space the size of an ice cream truck, he has a kitchen with gas stove and sink, bathroom with shower, two-seater porch, bedroom loft and a “great room” where he can work and entertain – as long as he doesn’t invite more than a couple guests. He and his family now live in relatively sprawling 500-square foot home next to the tiny one. Shafer, co-owner of the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company, designs and builds miniature homes with a minimalist style that prizes quality over quantity and makes sure no cubic inch goes to waste. Most can be hooked up to public utilities. The houses, which pack a range of amenities in spaces smaller than some people’s closets, are sold for $40,000 to $50,000 ready-made, but cost half as much if you build it yourself. Tumbleweed’s business has grown significantly since the housing crisis began, Shafer said. He now sells about 50 blueprints, which cost $400 to $1,000 each, a year, up from 10 five years ago. The eight workshops he teaches around the country each year attract 40 participants on average, he said. “People’s reasons for living small vary a lot, but there seems to be a common thread of sustainability,” Shafer said. “A lot of people don’t want to use many more resources or put out more emissions than they have to.” Compared to trailers, these little houses are built with higher-quality materials, better insulation and eye-catching design. But they still have wheels that make them portable – and allow owners to get around housing regulations for stationary homes. Since the housing crisis and recession began, interest in tiny homes has grown dramatically among young people and retiring Baby Boomers, said Kent Griswold, who runs the Tiny House Blog, which attracts 5,000 to 7,000 visitors a day. “In the last couple years, the idea’s really taken off,” Griswold said. “There’s been a huge interest in people downsizing and there are a lot of young people who don’t want to be tied down with a huge mortgage and want to build their own space.” Gregory Johnson, who co-founded the Small House Society with Shafer, said the online community now has about 1,800 subscribers, up from about 300 five years ago. Most of them live in their small houses full-time and swap tips on living simple and small. Johnson, 46, who works as a computer consultant at the University of Iowa, said dozens of companies specializing small houses have popped up around the country over the past few years. Before he got married, Johnson lived for six years in a small cabin he built himself and he wrote a book called “Put Your Life on a Diet: Lessons Learned from Living in 140 Square Feet.” “You start to peel away the things that are unnecessary,” said Johnson, who now lives in a studio apartment with his wife. “It helps you define your priorities with regard to your material things.” Northern California’s Sonoma County has become a mini-mecca for the tiny house industry, with an assortment of new businesses launching over the last few years. Stephen Marshall, 63, worked as a building contractor for three decades before the real estate market tanked three years ago. That’s when he jumped into the tiny house business, starting Petaluma-based Little House On The Trailer. His company builds and sells small houses that can serve as stand-alone homes equipped with bathrooms and kitchens, and others he calls “A Room of One’s Own” that can be used as a home office or extra bedroom. Many of his customers are looking for extra space to accommodate an aging parent or adult children who are returning home, he said. He said his small houses, which sell for $20,000 to $50,000, are much cheaper than building a home addition and can be resold when the extra space is no longer needed. His company has sold 16 houses this year and aims to sell 20 next year. “The business is growing as the public becomes aware of this possibility,” Marshall said. “A lot of families are moving in with one another. A lot of young people can’t afford to move out. There’s just a lot of economic pressure to find an alternative way to provide for people’s housing needs.”

Read the full article →

Madoff Victims’ Trustee Files Dozens Of Lawsuits

November 28, 2010

NEW YORK — Relatives of both Bernard Madoff and his wife are among those being targeted in 40 lawsuits announced Friday by the trustee endeavoring to recover money for victims fleeced by the disgraced financier. Twenty-two of the lawsuits were filed against relatives of Madoff and his wife, trustee Irving H. Picard said in a news release. Eighteen lawsuits were filed against former employees of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, he said. An attorney for Ruth Madoff didn’t immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment Friday night. Picard said his firm is seeking about $69 million in funds deposited by the company’s customers and stolen in the 72-year-old’s vast Ponzi scheme. Picard said the lawsuits were filed as part of an effort to recover funds from relatives and employees “who were closest to the center of the fraud and who were, in many cases, among those who benefited most from the Ponzi scheme.” Among the complaints, Madoff’s sister, Sondra M. Weiner, is accused of having “profited for decades” from the scheme, Picard said. A woman who answered the phone at Boynton Beach, Fla., listing for Weiner hung up without commenting late Friday. Picard said the lawsuits were filed after discussions with the defendants and their attorneys collapsed. Other complaints were previously filed against relatives of Madoff and senior BLMIS employees. The fresh batch of lawsuits comes three days after Picard announced a lawsuit against Swiss bank UBS AG, alleging it funneled clients to Madoff and then “looked the other way.” The bank called the allegation “completely unfounded.” Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence in federal prison in North Carolina after confessing to the nearly two-decade scheme that ensnared thousands of victims, including charities, celebrities and institutional investors. An estimated $20 billion was lost, making it the biggest investment fraud in U.S. history.

Read the full article →

9 Of The Most Mismanaged Charities In America: 24/7 Wall Street

November 20, 2010

By Wall Street 24/7 : Rating the non-profit sector is tricky. The main ratings services Charity Navigator and BBB Wise Giving Alliance are both flawed. Moreover, some in the non-profit world object to the idea of assigning grades to the sector because the organizations vary so much in size and scope. That’s nonsense. There clearly are some non-profits that are superior to others. The question is how to do it in the fairest way possible. Charity Navigator, which bills itself as the largest rating service, analyzes a number of factors related to a charity’s financial health including how efficiently it raises funds and the amount it spends on administrative expenses. Charities interested in receiving the BBB Wise Giving Alliance certification must pass the organization’s standards for financial accountability and transparency. In addition, they pay an annual fee of as much as $15,000 to display the group’s seal. GuideStar, another service, provides access to charity financial documents but does not offer any qualitative analysis. For donors, though, there is a fourth alternative, The American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP), which we found to be superior. AIP rates more than 550 charities, and boasts that its reviews are the toughest in the industry. The watchdog’s reports are more in-depth than its rivals and go beyond the information the groups report to the IRS through its Form 990 because charity accounting rules give organizations lots of leeway. As AIP notes on its website, ” … (we) make adjustments to better reflect the goals of most donors who want their cash donations to be used efficiently. We do not allow charities to count the funds they spend on direct mail or telemarketing in their program spending, or to include large amounts of undisclosed and often overvalued donated goods in their expenses, even if their accountants allow them to do so.” Charities may be unfairly penalized for complying with complex accounting rules under ratings that are derived from financial calculations derived from data the organizations report to the federal government, according to AIP. Other experts in the non-profit world expressed similar sentiments. In determining its list of the worst-run charities, 24/7 Wall St. relied on the AIP’s ratings. We also considered data from Charity Navigator and BBB along with media reports. The charities on the list were either rated “F” by AIP or were held in low regard by other raters. Moreover, they were heavily dependent on telemarketers for their fund-raising. Though most non-profits are run by responsible managements and boards of directors, a select few are not. One way that these organizations get tripped up is because of nepotism. Though having family members working in the same organization is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be a warning sign. “It’s definitely a red flag” says AIP analyst Laurie Styron in an interview. “It crowds out the best available people from landing jobs based on their merits. It promotes a lack of oversight.” There is no better poster child for nepotism and mismanagement run amok than Feed the Children, which reportedly collects $1 billion and became famous for its gut-wrenching TV commercials and rated “F” by AIP for years. In 2009, Feed the Children fired Larry Jones who founded the charity 30 years earlier after he admitted to installing hidden microphones in the offices of three executives who opposed to him. He is fighting for his job back and the charity has struck back claiming that Jones took kickbacks from vendors, kept a hidden stash of pornography in his office and gave himself and his wife, who also worked for Feed the Children, unauthorized raises. His daughter Larri was fired in August. Son Allen has filed a defamation suit against his sister and several board members because she said he was bipolar during a Feed the Children board meeting. A federal appeals court recently ruled against him. Though Allen Jones didn’t work for the charity, its board Feed The Children has accused him in a lawsuit of taking materials from a charity food distribution warehouse in Elkhart, Ind, according to the Oklahoman newspaper. Members of 24/7 Wall St. list of mismanaged charities all solicit donations nationally and all are either poorly rated or not held in high regard by the charity raters. The fact that some of these charities operate as if they were family businesses should make donors cautious. These are the most mismanaged non-profits in America — and check out 24/7 Wall Street for more information:

Read the full article →

Will Ferrell Loses Lawsuit Against JPMorgan, Slapped With $600,000 Penalty

November 18, 2010

Will Ferrell lost a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and now has to pay a big legal fee, NYT ‘s DealBook reports. The suit , which the actor filed in 2008 with his wife and a business manager, and with fellow funnyman Larry David’s trust, claimed the bank had “engaged in the unauthorized and unsuitable purchases” of $18 million of securities in the accounts of two “unnamed” parties. A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel not only ruled against Ferrell and the others but also decided they have to pay JPMorgan $600,000 to cover legal fees, and an additional $22,500 for “discovery abuse” and not following legal rules during the case. The NYT and the Wall Street Journal say this sort of penalty on investors is highly unusual. “It’s about time,” Jonathan Uretsky, a securities lawyer, told the WSJ . “I think this should happen more often.” Read the ruling: Finra Ruling Against Will Ferrell and Others

Read the full article →

Michael Moore: They Said They Would Push Me "Off a Cliff"

November 17, 2010

Yesterday, on the TV and radio show Democracy Now hosted by Amy Goodman, the former Vice President of CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, revealed that CIGNA met with the other big health insurers to hatch a plan to “push” yours truly “off a cliff.” The interview contains new revelations about just how frightened the health industry was that Sicko might ignite a public wave of support for “socialized medicine.” So the large health insurance companies came together over a common cause: Stop the American people from going to see Sicko — and the way to do that was to cause some form of harm to me (either personally, professionally or… physically?). Take a look at this stunning section of the interview with Wendell Potter: WENDELL POTTER [former executive, CIGNA]: …We were concerned that the movie [ Sicko ] would be as successful as Fahrenheit 9/11 had been. And we knew that if it were, it really would change public opinion about our health care system in ways that would be harmful to the profits of health insurers. So, it was very important for this [attack] campaign to succeed. At one point during a strategy meeting, one of the people from [the insurance companies' public relations firm] APCO said that if our efforts, our initial efforts, were not successful, then we’d have to move to an element of the campaign to push Michael Moore off a cliff. And not meaning to do that literally, but to — AMY GOODMAN: Are you sure? WENDELL POTTER: Well, I’m not sure. To tell you the truth, when I started doing what I’m doing [as a whistleblower], I was concerned about my own health and well-being, maybe just from paranoia. But these companies play to win. And we’re talking about some big bucks at stake here — billions and billions and billions of dollars. AMY GOODMAN: So what were they talking about when they said, “If this doesn’t work, we’re going to push him off the cliff”? WENDELL POTTER: Well, it would be just an incredibly intense PR effort, if necessary, to spend more premium dollars to defame Michael Moore, to discredit him even more as a filmmaker. AMY GOODMAN: So, were you doing research on him? WENDELL POTTER: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. AMY GOODMAN: You were going — personally? WENDELL POTTER: Well, I was a part of the effort. I didn’t — that was part of the reason for hiring APCO and to work with a trade association, is that it relieved me of the responsibility of doing that kind of work. You paid for it to be done by people who were experts in doing that kind of research. AMY GOODMAN: But they were doing an investigation into him personally? WENDELL POTTER: Well, absolutely. We knew as much about him probably as he knows about himself. AMY GOODMAN: About his wife, about his kid, about — WENDELL POTTER: Oh, yeah. You know, it’s important to know everything that you might be able to use in some kind of a campaign against someone, to discredit them professionally and often personally. AMY GOODMAN: And did you use that? WENDELL POTTER: You use it if necessary. The interview goes on as Potter reveals how his front group was able to get its talking points and smears into stories in the New York Times and CNN. It is a chilling look inside how easy it is to manipulate our mainstream media — and just how worried the health insurance companies were that the American people might demand a true universal health care system. In particular, Potter talks about how they may have succeeded in influencing CNN to run a factually untrue story about Sicko by its reporter, Sanjay Gupta (which led to my infamous encounter with Wolf Blitzer and later, an apology from CNN for getting their facts wrong). Potter believes his work to defame Sicko succeeded, as the film didn’t end up posting Fahrenheit 9/11 grosses. To be clear, Sicko went on to become the 3rd largest grossing documentary of all time at that point. And as the release of Sicko in June of 2007 was the first time since the defeat of Hillary Clinton’s healthcare bill in 1994 that the issue of health insurance was brought to the forefront of the national media, I believe it helped to reignite the issue during the 2008 election year by exposing millions of Americans to the truth about the health insurance industry. More than one person on Capitol Hill will admit that Sicko was a big help in rallying public support for the compromise bill that eventually passed earlier this year. But I agree, their smear campaign was effective and did create the dent they were hoping for — single payer and the public option never even made it into the real discussion on the floor of Congress. (There was really only one reason Sicko didn’t sell as many tickets as Fahrenheit and that was because of a felony that was committed — a felony that I will discuss for the first time in the coming weeks or months ahead on my website . Stay tuned.) Please read or watch the entire interview with Wendell Potter. It’s a fascinating peek behind the curtain of how corporate America really runs this country. And how if any of us get in their way, then those people must be stopped. It begs the question: Seeing how there’s more of us than there are of them, how long will we let their takeover of our democracy continue? God Bless the Ruling Class, Michael Moore P.S. Over the next few days I will continue this examination of the Wendell Potter revelations on Democracy Now and in his new book. Please check in at my website .

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Santa Special: A Fatter Net Worth

November 12, 2010

Here’s a novel idea. Why limit those holiday stocking stuffers to friends and relatives? Why not get a gift for yourself, as well? What should you buy? In this case, how about a Christmas stuffer that could wind up stuffing your bank account with more cash? That’s essentially the thinking of a trio of investment pros, who recommend putting some bucks to work in the revitalized, roller-coaster stock market Hey, wait a minute. After this past week’s mediocre market showing — which saw the Dow tumble 251.50 points — such an idea hardly seems very appealing, if not downright scary. Moreover, such a suggestion would have drawn a thunderous chorus of boos earlier this year when fear gripped Wall Street. It’s no wonder. Following last May’s “flash crash,” a sudden and frightening drop in the Dow of about 600 points in a matter of minutes, coupled later on with spiraling fears of a double-dip recession and mounting worries of spreading European debt crises, many Wall Streeters understandably ran for cover, convinced that Santa would likely be a no-show this Christmas. That view, though, now may well be off base as a growing number of market watchers have shifted gears, believing St. Nick is on the way with a bag of goodies that contains another one of those traditional year-end spirited Santa Claus rallies. Granted, there’s still a lot out there to spook investors, such as a resumption of European debt woes, a housing market that looks like it’s rolling over again, the near certainty of a painfully slow jobs recovery, a recent spurt of disappointing reports from such names as Disney and Cisco Systems, and a gridlocked Congress that figures to continue to provide little or no meaningful legislation over the next couple of years. Still, some market watchers, fired up by improving economic fundamentals — which have driven up the Dow from 10,000 in late August to around 11,400 (now 11,192) — are looking for say another 5 percent to 7 percent gain in stock prices over the next few months. San Francisco money manager Gary Wollin sums it up: “Santa Claus is coming to town. Or more aptly put, he’s coming to Wall Street.” While some pros argue that the market is overbought, rising too far too soon, and vulnerable to a sell-off, Wollin, who manages a tad above $100 million of assets under the banner Gary Wollin & Co., disagrees. He thinks there’s more upside over the near term, namely a further rise in the Dow to 12,000 by year end. Wollin, who has deftly caught a number of up and down market moves in recent years and astutely turned bullish in March of 2009 with the Dow at around 6,500, points to a somewhat perkier economy and huge liquidity on the sidelines, especially in low-yielding fixed-income investments, as the major spark plugs for his 12,000 projection. Another, he says, will be the likely re-entry into the market of the individual investor, who, he notes, is feeling a lot wealthier now than at the end of 2008, a year in which the Dow fell about 34 percent and closed at 8,776. Indicative of this re-entry is the fact that individual investors have plowed money into stock mutual funds in three of the past four weeks. Retail sales gains in both August and September, it’s pointed out, also reflect this wealthier view. Though a bull, Wollin worries that inflation could take hold sooner than expected because of excessive money printing. Likewise, he thinks retail sales could turn sluggish after Christmas because of continuing high unemployment. A blue chip stock player, he rates a winning equities portfolio over the next 12 months as one that contains such names as AT&T, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, UPS and Federal Express. Bob Doll, the chief investment strategist at BlackRock, a global investment manager with more than $1 trillion of assets, echoes Wollin’s market exuberance. Pointing to improving economic signs, the $600 billion economic-boosting QE2 (quantitative easing) package, the GOP’s conquest of the House, strong earnings growth and attractive stock valuations, Doll says it all adds up to higher stock prices. Chuck Carlson, an editor of the Dow Theory Forecasts, one of the nation’s leading investment newsletters. takes note of another bullish signal — a rise in two Dow averages (the Dow Transports and the Dow Industrials) to two-year highs, which means, he says, the primary market trend should be regarded as bullish under the Dow Theory. Taking note, too, of the tremendous cash on the sidelines, a gradually, but slowly growing economy and stepped-up corporate stock buybacks, Carlson says he’s reasonably optimistic that the trend is up for the balance of the year. Like Wollin, he also thinks a 12,000 Dow before Jan. 1, 2011, is a reasonable expectation. His top stock picks for the next 12 months, all rated as market outperformers, are Aflac, Newmont Mining, Apple, IBM recommend and CSX. Whether our three bulls are on target or full of bull remains to be seen. But a couple of studies, based on historic patterns, strongly support the advent of another Santa Claus rally. One study shows that since 1986, December is an outperforming month for the market, having averaged a 1.4 percent gain, versus an average 0.5 percent rise for all non-December months. The other study shows that since the end of World War 11 through 2001, the Dow averaged a 9.1 percent gain from its low in November or December to its high in December or January. In some cases, these gains were double-digit, ranging from 10.7 percent to 22.2 percent. What do I think? Put me in the skeptical camp. When a dry cleaning store out of the blue feels compelled to call up my wife, Harriet, and tell her “we could use your business,” that’s something to worry about. Likewise, when I see a growing number of reasonably well dressed people panhandling at restaurants, hotels and places of worship, and hear of more and more people griping that they can no longer afford the maintenance charges on their apartments, it tells me the economy is still struggling pretty badly, more so than many of us think. On top of this, 43 million Americans are now on food stamps, there’s an inventory of 4.2 million empty homes looking for buyers and 14.8 million unemployed looking for work. Actually, it’s 25 million if you factor in the underemployed — people who have left the labor force and part-timers who can’t get full-time jobs. Any way you look at it, such shortfalls are hardly the stuff of what economic recoveries and bull markets are all about. But just maybe I’m too much of a worry-wart. Perhaps, judging from the way our trio of pros see it, John Wayne had the right idea when he said “courage is being scared to death…and saddling up anyway.” What do you gthink? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: Transactions: Nov. 15, 2010

November 12, 2010

There are markets and electorates; there is price discovery and voting. Different? The same? Both practices are techniques for revealing sentiment. Hammering the keyboard to buy or sell shares, jamming a paper ballot into a scanner, are both methods for transmitting information like an electrode taped to the skull of the demos. Both work most effectively when participants can enter and exit the process as autonomous actors. In markets, of course, big players scattering dollars are more equal than small players worth squat. Indeed, anyone with cash is more important than anyone without. While the rules of voting decree one-man-one-vote, the secondary reality of big donors, big organizations, big shots clearly undermines that. It’s always a quaint photo op when a candidate arrives at the polling booth to vote. He doffs his overcoat, handing it off camera like Ina Garten handing off dirty dishes. Smooths the hair; kisses the wife. Weird, there’s never a line. Ah, there he is, just a lone palooka undertaking his civic duty. The fact that he (or she) commands millions of dollars, is backed by a vast organization and has an entourage to hold his coat, well, that’s not discussed. It’s as if those pensioners queueing up at the buffet line at the annual meeting of Gizmo Inc. actually mattered as much as, say, Carl Icahn. Both practices rest on the belief that they produce optimal, meaning rational, results. In markets, there is the efficient-market hypothesis, which even in its diluted form traces itself back to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Even if the price isn’t perfectly efficient, even if the market hasn’t absorbed all possible information in a rational fashion, even if it circles around equilibrium (whatever that may be) like a drunken economist around a street lamp, it’s better than nothing. The machine works by itself; it takes, in theory, no orders. And what of elections? Candidates have been bought and sold (no pun intended), winners culled from losers. If the election is aboveboard, then the result — genuflect! — is The Result. Of course, one big difference between markets and elections is that markets reprice in real time. A moment’s reality can change in a snap. Even with real-time polling, which always threatens to collapse the distinction between markets and elections, citizens get to pull on their top coat and select candidates only every few years or so. As a result, the reality established by election persists. This gives pols a chance to act, as opposed to simply getting re-valued daily. Here’s another difference: The goal of markets is to set a price; the goal of elections is to improve the lot of voters. Big difference, if perhaps shrinking. Now it’s true the ends of politics and trading are not the same, though our candidate’s vicuña topcoat suggests that politics has been pretty profitable for a small-town pharmacist with seven children. But the theories behind them are as close as two siblings, which explains the occasional fighting in the back seat. The electorate is supposedly wise about its own self-interest; and, like now, it may question the wisdom of its doppelgänger, the markets. Alas, this is like peering in the mirror. The dismantling of the strong form of rational markets that followed the financial crisis raises questions about the rationality of electorates, which has implications that extend beyond finance and politics. After all, much of what occurs in a democratic culture is some hybrid of election and price discovery. Most cultural objects, from punditry to footwear to lifestyles to what museums hang on their walls, are shaped by a crowd. Much of what goes for commercial activity, from careerism to car sales, involves scaring up a decent mob. Network effects and tipping points are forms of crowd behavior. Counting crowds is big business. Inane references to Life as High School do have a point: Popularity matters. Social reality bends to its will. Of course, there are many problems with the common, high-school definition of popularity, which usually comes down, like elections and markets, to who is hot now. But life is long, the future stretches out like the endless highway of song and speech, and there’s a tendency to believe that this moment’s prom queen will be flaunting her fake tiara for years: eternal fame today. Who knows what the reality will be two decades from now? But, of course, to ponder such questions leads to madness, introspection or value investing, which for the great mass of citizens doesn’t help much in either markets, politics or life. Seize the day, my friends. After all, the crowd has every natural right, according to our Founding Fathers, to determine its own fate. Buy, sell, pursue happiness. Where that leaves the rest of us self-reliant individuals is a question for another day. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal.

Read the full article →

Jerry Chautin: Starting a Business Begins With Exit Planning and a Buy-Sell Agreement

October 27, 2010

Charlie Spence’s advice to prospective small-business owners is to visualize your exit before you start. But even if you are already in business, it is not too late plan your exit. Spence is a financial adviser with Edward Jones Investments in Murphy, N. C. and I caught up with him at a workshop in this small, Western, North Carolina, Appalachian Mountain town. “At some point, undoubtedly you will exit (your business),” he says. “And that time could be rather soon for unexpected reasons, in the distant future, or sometime in between.” But unexpected occurrences can also happen to your business partner and you need to be prepared. “Two ways business plans for joint owners can become derailed is by either the death or disability of a partner,” Spence says. “The transition after a death can be made much easier with a buy-sell agreement .” My brother-in-law had a buy-sell agreement when he unexpectedly died leaving behind a wife and five children. His business partner was also left behind to fend for himself. A buy-sell agreement is a critical first step in exit planning. It should be one of the first requirements when starting a small business with multiple owners. Without one, my brother-in-law’s wife would have inherited his half of the business. In that instance, she could have taken his place in the company, whether or not his partner was pleased with that arrangement. Alternatively, she could have sold her inherited portion to an unqualified stranger with the chance of destabilizing the company. Instead, the buy-sell agreement mandated the purchase of life insurance to cover both partners. Their spouses were the beneficiaries and the tax-deductible premiums were paid by the business. So when my brother-in-law passed away, his wife got the insurance benefit. It turn, she was required to sell her inherited interest in the company to the surviving business partner for the amount of the insurance proceeds. Disability insurance works in a similar fashion if a business partner becomes disabled. In that event, the insurance pays off so that the disabled partner continues to have income. It protects his or her family from experiencing financial hardship during that time. “In the case of a partner’s disability, disability insurance would help replace income and protect the family of the disabled from experiencing financial hardship during that time,” Spence says. Additionally, disability of a partner or key salesperson can adversely affect the revenues of a small business. To protect the company’s cash flow, insurance policies can name the business as the beneficiary so that the income stream continues. But exit planning is also for business owners who are in good health and envision a comfortable life in retirement. More specifically, it is designed to help business owners save and invest their earnings while deferring income tax payments until they retire. “One day we all hope to retire and the earlier we plan for that day the more likely it will take shape as we hope,” Spence says. Exit planning is “to protect themselves, as much as possible, from taxes and inflation, and to build a retirement nest egg.” Retirement plans also offer benefits to the employees. It helps companies attract and retain them. Yet, “workers in small firms with fewer than 100 employees are much less likely than larger businesses to have a retirement plan available to them,” according to a study by the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy . “Nearly 72 percent of workers in small companies have no retirement plan available.” The study says that about 58 million workers do not have access to any type of retirement plan through their place of work. But even when a company-sponsored retirement plan is offered, “20 million workers do not participate.” According to SBA’s Susan Walthall, the study is to ensure business owners and their employees “plan and save adequately for their retirement.” The study blames the cost of setting up and running a retirement plan as reason that many small businesses do not offer them. Importantly, however, the cost varies with the complexity of the plan that you choose. And some simple plans are cost effective. To help you structure the best retirement plan for your circumstances, a financial adviser or your accountant can help. Additionally, an attorney who specializes in pension plans may be required to set it up and keep it current. For more complicated plans, an actuary will be needed. To estimate how much you need to save for a comfortable retirement, check out MSN’s retirement calculator online. Jerry Chautin is a volunteer SCORE business counselor, business columnist and SBA’s 2006 national ” Journalist of the Year ” award winner. He is a former entrepreneur, commercial mortgage banker, commercial real estate dealmaker and business lender. You can follow him at www.Twitter.com/JerryChautin

Read the full article →

Julia Moulden: Over 50 and at the Top of Your Game? Here’s What’s Next

October 23, 2010

You’ve passed the half-century mark, and a question has been rattling around in your brain: “What’s next?” Recently, you answered it with a single word: “work.” And now you’re beginning to see that you can be part of something unprecedented, that the work you do later in life can be the most satisfying of your entire career. You can, as I describe it, “ripen.” Cool. But now a new question pops up. “What work, exactly?” Loyal readers will know that I’m writing a book called “RIPE: Rich, Rewarding Work After 50.” As I listened to ripe pioneers, I began to see a pattern emerging and plotted a matrix: along one side, the reasons people begin this journey, along the other, the possible paths forward. Where might you be on this matrix? For instance, you might have been successful in your chosen field and are now ready to try something new. You want to break new ground or implement innovative ideas, maybe realize a lifelong dream or assist in the birth of a compelling new vision. Arianna Huffington is a terrific example of this kind of ripening. At 56, she launched the Huffington Post. As a new media model, it would welcome voices not normally heard in the mainstream press: “curated news and instant intelligent opinion for an engaged community,” as she says. HuffPost quickly became one of the most widely read and talked-about new media brands. Many boomers will answer the question, “What work, exactly?” with, “Start a business.” Some of us will do it because it’s something we’ve always wanted to do, others because we can’t find work and need to create it. But hanging out a shingle is suddenly on the upswing, especially among people over 50. Just ask the folks at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation , the world’s largest foundation dedicated to entrepreneurship. Their research shows that the average age of first-time entrepreneurs is now between 55 and 64. “The United States is on the cusp of an entrepreneurship boom — not in spite of an aging population, but because of it.” The Kauffman Foundation is referring to people like Lee Weinstein . Lee and I met when he approached me last year to introduce one of his clients, Icebreaker , an innovative sportswear company from New Zealand. I had no idea he was a ripe pioneer until we started chatting. Turns out he’d spent 15 years working for Nike and knew that it was time to get out and do something new. A two-year process of introspection led to him reinvent his work; he now runs a PR agency with his wife, who also worked at Nike. Not only are they doing well, with just the right number of clients (including Nike), but they have a more balanced life, with time to enjoy the pleasures of not working, too. Which sounds pretty ripe to me. Given the number of emails I’ve received — and the comments on the first few columns about RIPE — I know that you’re all over this idea. We’re eager to hear your stories, so please share how you plan to spend the years between 50 and 100-plus, or feel free to contact me directly via my website. And since we’re on the subject of valuing people of a certain age, are you wondering why this extraordinary group of people who called themselves The Elders aren’t getting press coverage? As I write, The Elders have been in the Middle East for a few weeks, making a unique contribution to the peace process. I know this because I get their media releases. But I haven’t seen anything about their mission in the mainstream media. What’s up with that? Julia Moulden is an author, speaker, and columnist. Read Julia Moulden’s HuffPost archive, including the first columns about RIPE .

Read the full article →

John Salama, Army Corps Worker, Charged In Iraq Contract Bribes

October 13, 2010

NEWARK, N.J. — An employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from a construction company seeking contracts for projects in Iraq worth millions of dollars, according to a criminal complaint filed Wednesday. John Alfy Salama Markus, also known as John Salama, made an initial court appearance Wednesday afternoon, where U.S. Magistrate Mark Falk ordered him released on $500,000 bond secured by property. He did not enter a plea. Markus faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and money laundering. The money laundering count carries a 20-year maximum prison sentence. Also charged in the alleged scheme was Ahmed Nouri, also known as Ahmed Bahjat, vice president of a construction and engineering company seeking work in Iraq. Nouri was still at large Wednesday. Markus’ attorney, Stacy Biancamano, said he was a soldier in Iraq before working for the Army Corps of Engineers and had earned a Purple Heart and Bronze Star. According to the criminal complaint, Markus, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who lived in central New Jersey, monitored contracts as a project engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq in 2007 and 2008. It was unclear from the complaint whether Markus was a civilian or military employee, and Biancamano did not immediately return a phone call seeking further comment Wednesday. The complaint alleges Markus took bribes from Nouri in exchange for providing confidential information to Nouri’s company, Iraqi Consultants & Construction Bureau, about bidding negotiations on certain projects. Markus also allegedly steered Army Corps of Engineers projects to Nouri, including a $6.25 million project to enhance security at the Bayji Oil Refinery in central Iraq for which Markus allegedly received at least $200,000 in bribes. Citing Army Corps of Engineers records, the complaint alleges four more contracts were awarded to ICCB in the summer of 2007 totaling approximately $6.3 million. For those projects, Markus allegedly sought $550,000 in bribes. The U.S. attorney’s office alleges Markus deposited the bribes in bank accounts in the Middle East and in the U.S. and used the money to build a $1.1 million house for himself and his wife in Nazareth, Pa. They had previously lived in Belle Mead, N.J. In a November 2007 e-mail, Markus wrote to Nouri, “I saved a lot of money for you guys and I need at least 400K form ICCB for all the work I done for you I made you a lot of profit,” the complaint alleges.

Read the full article →

Citigroup Loses Larry Hagman Case, Must Pay More Than $10 Million Over Bad Investments

October 10, 2010

Last week, Mr. Hagman, 79, got even once again. This time it was against his broker. A securities arbitration panel awarded Mr. Hagman and his wife Maj, 82, a big victory against Citigroup, which had overseen some of the couple’s investment accounts.

Read the full article →

Jess Walter: Trust Me… Finance and Poetry Are Funny

September 30, 2010

Last week, the Terminator mainframe that has replaced the American news media accidentally let a little old-fashioned news slip in between Kardashian bikini updates: Economists Locate End of Recession , the headline read. It turns out the worst economic crash since the Great Depression actually ended some fifteen months ago — although you could be forgiven for missing it, as you likely were out selling plasma or you don’t get CNN in the sewer-grate cardboard box where you live. So wait. That’s it? It’s… over? When this recession began, I was angry, agitated, upset. It felt like something structural had broken in our economy — that it was permanent and would require serious attention by serious people — reform of Wall Street and policies that would finally address the economic caste system we’ve been building the last thirty years in America. So certain was I that we were experiencing something historic and profound I did the only rational thing an angry person could do: I began working on a comic rant of a novel called The Financial Lives Of The Poets , about an unemployed guy who writes financial poetry, smokes pot outside his neighborhood 7-Eleven and stalks the man his wife is flirting with on facebook. At the time, my protagonist’s deep middle-class anxiety felt like life to me. Many of my friends were out of work, my house had lost a third of its value, and I was trying to figure out what to do about medical insurance. Two years later, the recession is over and it’s a new world. Many of my friends are out of work, my house is worth two-thirds what it was and I’m trying to figure out what to do about medical insurance. It’s Morning in America. And I can’t find my pants. To be clear, I’m not a real victim of this recession. I’m doing fine. A former journalist and now fat-cat-novelist, I am part of that media elite that President-Elect Palin keeps warning you about, a veritable multi-thousandaire whose assets are spread evenly between hard liquor (I’m hoarding; it’s the next gold) and signed copies of my friends’ books. And don’t get me wrong: I’m happy those economists finally found the end of the recession. (Turns out the damn thing was here all along; it had just slipped between cushions of the peasant-skin couch in the Goldman Sachs executive lounge.) I just wonder, now that it’s over, what’s changed? Remember in history class, how periods of American trial were followed by seismic sociological change? The Depression leads to government regulation and the beginnings of a social safety net; World War II leads to the baby boom, the beginning of racial integration and a burgeoning middle class. So what did we get for our collective trouble over the last few years? That’s easy. More of the same. The same week that economists found the end of the recession, another news story moved between Lindsay Lohan crime spree bulletins: During the last year, 3.8 million Americans (or roughly … Oregon) slipped below the poverty limbo stick. Now, 42 million people, or one in seven Americans, lives in poverty (for a family of four this means living on $22,000 a year; you should try it sometime.) This represents the largest percentage increase in that number since 1959, two full years before our current President was born (to sleeper cell agents in the very cave where Osama Bin Laden now lives; sadly, the cave is only worth 70 percent of what it was then.) This could end up being the first recession in history in which the gap between rich and poor actually gets bigger. According to several studies, the top 1 percent of people makes 23 percent of the money , the highest measure of income inequality since 1928, the year before the Great Depression. Not so fast, says the right-wing Cato Institute; these numbers aren’t fair because they don’t factor in government programs like food stamps, which would lower that number to the top 1 percent earning only 21 percent of the money . Yes. Food stamps. This is the world we live in, post-recession. The rich are richer and whining about food stamps in their attempt to keep former President Obama from raising taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. And are the 80 percent of Americans making 20 percent of the money the ones who are inflamed? No, it’s the rich, who are fighting mad about socialism or food stamps or… something. Meanwhile, the poor are that much poorer, and more disenfranchised than ever. On CNBC , ratings are back up, along with the S&P, and they’re playing “Eye of the Tiger” as the up-ticking stock price flashes for a soaring financial concern that figured out the way to increase share price was to not hire people, to not invest its money, and seven million American homes remain in danger of being foreclosed while a handful of billionaires secretly and cynically fund the Tea Party as their own personal Trojan Horse, using religion, immigration, guns, and any other old distracting issue that will separate low- and middle-class Americans from voting in their best interest. Don’t raise taxes on the rich because you’re not factoring in food stamps. We went to the recession and all we got was this lousy T-shirt. “So what’s your book about?” a woman asked me at a reading recently. It’s a rant about the financial crisis, I said. She made a face. And it’s got poetry, I added. She made a worse face. It’s a comic novel? I tried. Finally, she smiled. “Ooh, I like those,” she said, “and do you draw the pictures yourself?” I started to say that it wasn’t that kind of comic . But baby needs more grain alcohol. Why yes, I said, I most certainly do. Jess Walter is a former National Book Award finalist and author of, most recently, The Financial Lives Of The Poets, now available in paperback .

Read the full article →

Alfred Gingold: THE WEASEL BLINKS

September 29, 2010

Readers of my previous recent posts know that my wife and I are locked in combat with our mortgage bank, which persists in creating false penalties to add to our mortgage bill. Last week, the day after the receipt from our certified letter to Jamie Dimon returned to us, we received a voice mail from Heather Yomboro of the Chase Home Finance Executive Office. Actually, she lavished two calls on us, which we couldn’t return until the next day, by which time a Fedex from Heather had appeared under our door to the effect that if she did not hear back from us, Chase would assume the matter closed. After three months of studiously ignoring us, the Weasel demands action. In 2008, the last time we wrote to Mr. Dimon, the fixer assigned to our case came from the Chase Executive Resolution Committee, which still sounds to me like a branch of the East German Secret Police, and indeed, our fixer would’ve been right at home in the Stasi, her humorless manner balanced between cool politesse and infuriating snottiness. Fortunately, I noticed that she bristled at being called Ma’am, so I called her Ma’am every chance I got. Chase’s Executive Office must be a pleasanter place that its Executive Resolution Committee; at least Heather Yomboro is a good deal pleasanter than Ms. Stasi was. She bore the good news that our September mortgage payment was finally accepted and our fraudulent late penalties removed. To our astonishment, she apologized on behalf of the bank for sticking us with the neighbor’s water bill and acknowledged that the Tax Department “jumped the gun” on our July tax payment, paying it before it was due so we could be escrowed for being late. I pointed out that this is not the first time Chase has pulled this stunt, not even the second. She apologized for that too. Apologized! Be still my heart. But even if Heather Yomboro is pleasant and courteous, she is still a Chase employee, so I was wary. And it turned out that the real reason for her call was that the bank is out of pocket for those improper tax payments. The NYC Tax Office, bless its stony heart, won’t return their dough, simply crediting the funds toward our tax bill. So, Heather said, we must return those funds to Chase. Alternatively, she suggested, we could call the NYC Tax Office and persuade them to return Chase’s money, then pay in our taxes ourselves. Not a chance. Can you imagine the length of the phone tree I’d have to wait through in order to plead the bank’s case? Well, Heather opined, “the real problem here is that the city won’t return our money to us.” I reminded her that the real problem here is her employer’s relentless greed and procedural sloppiness. Heather reminded me that, heck, a bank is really nothing more than a group of individuals who occasionally make, you know, mistakes. If you say so, Heather, although I’m inclined to see your bank, at least, as a sinister cadre of weasels devoted to nicking every penny it can get by tooth, claw or sleaze. I told Heather that before we would even consider paying Chase the money it can’t get back from the city, we require a written statement of what we had discussed, included a listing of the various ways the bank attempted to defraud us: the water bill, the premature tax payment, the cooked up penalties. She agreed readily. That was six days ago and no such letter has arrived. However, Chase did send us a check for eighteen bucks, compensation for the certified letters we sent to Jamie et al. I’d mentioned the cost of those letters to Heather and that our other attempt to get Chase’s attention had failed. They sent us the check without even a receipt from us (good thing too because I still can’t find it). It was a nice gesture, much more convincing than the Weasel’s customary sign-off, which graces this letter too: “Chase’s goal is to provide the highest level of quality service.” Nice, but I doubt the sincerity. As a public service, we offer some advice for all who have issues with Chase Home Weasel: Don’t bother with the indifferent lugnuts of Customer Care or the unscrupulous bean-counters of the Tax Department. Write directly to Jamie Dimon himself, certified mail. In our experience, it’s the only way there is to get the bank’s attention, and he’s probably got time on his hands now that he’s sold his house. Here’s his contact info: Jamie Dimon JP Morgan Chase & Co. 270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 jamie.dimon@jpmchase.com Phone: 212-270-1111 Fax : 212-270-1121 Meanwhile, we await Chase’s next missive while, of course, paying our mortgage on time.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: PSCs on Drugs

September 23, 2010

Over the years all sorts of things have been said and written about Erik Prince , founder, owner, and former head of Xe Services (formerly Blackwater Worldwide). Most of it has been critical. I’ve written before that while some of it, perhaps even lots of it, has been deserved, much of it has not. But thanks to pop culture, some lazy reporters, lots of ignorant online commentary, and people’s inclination to fit people into simplistic frameworks of good and bad, and ignore underlying structural reasons as to why we have private security contractors in the first place, Prince has been subjected to all sorts of unwarranted rhetorical abuse. So one might be inclined to forgive him when he pops off and says something rash. On the other hand, there is a saying that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging. Remember the proverb; silence is golden. As in Erik should know by know that there are times when he should just keep his mouth shut. The reason he should button it is that you may recall that last month Prince was questioned in Abu Dhabi in connection with a fraud lawsuit filed by former employees that seeks millions of dollars in damages. He was questioned by Susan Burke, the lawyer who represents two former Blackwater employees, Brad and Melan Davis, who filed the lawsuit in a US district court in Virginia in December 2008, alleging that Prince and companies he controlled defrauded the US government. For background see my past Feb. 13, 2010 post “Blackwater Uses the F(raud) Word.” Now it turns out that the defendant Prince is seeking a protective order to seal the court file and to gag extrajudicial statements in the “Davis v. Prince” litigation. As one would expect Ms. Burke s arguing that the plaintiffs would be severely prejudiced “if the Court adopted Defendants‟ proposed Protective Order sealing everything and Defendants‟ proposed Gag Order prohibiting any contact with the media. Relators’ investigative efforts would be severely circumscribed by either Order.” A hearing on this issue will be held tomorrow morning at the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Yesterday Burke and her co-counsel filed a motion with new allegations. Note: if you are someone with a subscription to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) you can download the motion (1:08-cv-01244-TSE -TRJ) Reading it one understands why Prince wants it suppressed. To start with: On August 23, 2010, Relators‟ counsel deposed Defendant Erik Prince. After his deposition concluded, Mr. Prince threatened to “come after” Ms. Burke, as is explained in the appended Burke Decl. Evidently keeping cool under fire is not one of his strong points. True, the appended declaration is still under seal so the precise words exchanged and their context is unknown. Still, the Eastern District Court of Virginia is not Fallujah; there is no need for lock and load rhetoric. As Dr. Evil said to his son, zip it. Moving on, a more provocative point would be this: Media reports regarding the lawsuits prompted a third party named Howard Boardman Lowry to contact Relators‟ Counsel. Mr. Lowry’s sworn testimony is attached in its entirety as Exhibit B. Mr. Lowry testified he purchased steroids, human growth hormones, and testosterone for Blackwater employees and his observation of rampant drug use among Blackwater employees. Initially, Blackwater paid for the steroids from company funds. Later, Blackwater management steered Blackwater personnel to Mr. Lowry. He also testified that Blackwater employees would often shoot at Iraqi pedestrians for no reason and would regularly shoot into adjacent buildings housing Iraqi civilians among other acts of unwarranted violence. In short, Mr. Lowry provides critical and corroborating evidence. See Exhibit B. Critical and corroborating evidence indeed! That doesn’t begin to do justice to Mr. Lowry’s assertions. Consider this excerpt from his videotaped declaration. There were numerous individuals that would come to my hotel room and – and give me money to purchase usually steroids or testosterone, and once I came back to my room, on several occasions. Mr. Chris Fuller, Mr. Madison Webb, and a gentlemen by the name – he was a New Zealand special, SAS, special forces, who went by the name of “Baaz.” It is the only name that I knew him by. He was known companywide by that name. And the three of them on numerous occasions injected themselves with testosterone and steroids in my presence. There were other individuals after. There was a – a gentleman in the room next to me that I had gotten a room for, actually two floors in the Mosafer Hotel for Blackwater at the behest of Mr. Berry at that point because the company was expanding very rapidly, and Jerry was one of the gentlemen who ended up being killed in Fallujah. [This would be Jerry Zovko who was one of four Blackwater contractors ambushed and killed by insurgents in Fallujah, Iraq on March 31, 2004]. Jerry was a good friend of mine and gave – provided me tremendous insight into the company and confirmed that the use of steroids and human growth hormone, testosterone, were pretty much endemic to them and almost companywide. It was – it was a wide-ranging problem, and this included individuals that were on Bremer’s personal detail. I cannot say for the record that I personally witnessed them taking it.; however, on numerous occasions, individuals that did provide me money to make the purchases of the steroids and testosterone did convey that these were going directly to members of Blackwater personnel and Bremer’s – Ambassador Bremer’s personal detail. Why do plaintiffs oppose Prince’s ‟ motion to seal all evidence in this lawsuit and to impose a “gag order” on the plaintiffs and their counsel? First, note that they do not oppose to entry of an appropriate protective order. They had been collaborating with defense counsel and the State Department to prepare such an order. But Burke argues that the defendants have not demonstrated good cause for their proposed protective order. “Plaintiffs and the public would be substantially prejudiced by entry of Defendants‟ overbroad protective order, which seeks to seal everything disclosed in pretrial discovery.” Second, “Defendants repeatedly assert that Relators‟ counsel intends to publicize materials merely to annoy, embarrass, and oppress Defendants. This is false. Relators‟ counsel wants the media to cover the pre-trial proceedings in this action because that media coverage results in fact witnesses such as Mr. Howard Lowry contacting them. These witnesses are going to be helpful in showing the jury that Relators‟ claims of widespread fraud and misconduct have merit.” Third, and this says much about Prince’s inability to do effective public relations: It is absurd to suggest that media attention surrounding Defendant Prince and Blackwater is somehow caused by Relators and their Counsel. Although Relators‟ counsel often shares non-sealed materials with the media to further the Relators‟ interests in finding additional corroborating witnesses, Defendant Prince and his companies create the media stir by their own actions. Indeed, their misconduct has led to a series of indictments (Exhibit D), charging letters from the State Department (Exhibit E), and criminal trials (Exhibit F). Indeed, Defendant Prince seeks publicity that serves his own ends. He voluntarily participated in a Vanity Fair interview, pressing his view that anyone who criticizes his misconduct must have a “political agenda.” Exhibit G. Defendant Prince voluntarily cooperated with a book about his life, called Master of War. Exhibit H. In the book, he voluntarily revealed, among other things, that he fathered a child out of wedlock and cheated on his wife who was dying of cancer.

Read the full article →

Alfred Gingold: A LETTER TO JAMIE DIMON

September 23, 2010

Readers of my last Chase Home Weasel Update on Huffpo know that we are four weeks past the talk with the Tax Department’s dulcet JoAnne, during which she said it might take the bank as much as two weeks to undue the havoc it had wreaked upon our mortgage. Readers of my subsequent Weasel Update on Joy Buzzer know that JoAnne spoke with forked tongue, and that last Thursday, we sent three certified letters, return receipt requested, to Chase Home Weasel’s Tax Department, its Customer Care Department and to Jamie Dimon, respectively. Dimon is CEO of JP Morgan Chase, the gigantic bank of which Chase Home Weasel is but the home-loan tentacle. The letters, identical aside from their addresses, all stated our intention to file an action in small claims court against Chase unless it clears our account of improper charges and restores our escrow waiver. Going to court of any kind against a corporate behemoth is not my idea of fun, but we have tried every other means we can think of to persuade the Weasel to clean up its mess. In hopes of lighting a (metaphorical) fire under Mr. Dimon, I wrote him a special note: Dear Jamie – The first and last time I wrote you was in 2008, when Chase Home Finance abruptly decided that my wife and I were delinquent in our tax payments and thus in violation of our escrow waiver. We weren’t. After some months of writing letters that were ignored and parleying with numerous Customer Care passive-aggressives, I wrote to you, certified mail, return receipt requested.. Within days, someone from the Executive Resolution Group called and the matter was settled. The time I’m writing to say that Chase is at it again, fabricating delinquencies and escrowing us for taxes we’ve already paid. This time I am so disgusted, angry and frustrated that I’m going to sue the bastards if they don’t stop this crap. Since you are the bastards’ putative boss, I thought you should know. (All relevant documentation, btw, follows this note.) Now that that’s out of the way, allow me to offer some advice, advice originally offered by Elie Wiesel to Ronald Reagan in an unsuccessful attempt to dissuade the Gipper from going to Bitburg, Germany in 1985, to pay his respects to a bunch of dead SS officers. Wiesel said, “This is not your place.” You, Jamie, are the best face your industry has to put forward these days. You are a financial superstar, Obama’s favorite banker (erstwhile anyway), CEO of a bank that didn’t really need its TARP infusion, just took it to be a good sport, paid it back promptly and went right on getting rich as Croesus and too big to fail. You are articulate, measured in comportment, almost as famous as Lloyd Blankfein and less vulpine in mien then he-hardly a challenge, but still. And just as honoring Nazis ought to be beneath the dignity of the POTUS, so penny-ante thievery ought to be beneath the dignity of the House of Dimon. I realize that my problem doesn’t rank high on the scale of evil banking tricks, but then it’s not the worst blemish on JP Morgan Chase’s somewhat grimy escutcheon these days. Those laid off Mexican janitors who came all the way from L.A. to see you and didn’t get past security did not create a shining moment for your joint, even though you didn’t actually have much to do with their plight. More on the money, so to speak, are those distasteful out-of-court settlements for abusive loan practices and unlawful payment schemes, among other charges. And there’s Chase’s widely publicized foot-dragging on loan modifications. And let’s not forget Home Finance CEO David B. Lowman’s embarrassing performance before the House Financial Services Committee; the next time Mr. Lowman faces his public, you should really insist he wear sneakers. Understand, I’m not calling you a petty thief trying to pick my pocket. But you have employees who do that and I think you should tell them to stop. It’s not just illegal, it’s unseemly. It’s not your place. And congratulations on selling the Chicago manse ! Dropping the price by half did the trick. Bet that took some intestinal fortitude. Impressive place, too, with the columns and the chintz and the objets; it looks bigger than Tony Soprano’s crib and classier too. Hope financing doesn’t become a problem for your buyer. I hear banks are being real douchebags about mortgages these days. Tell me, did you simmer a vanilla bean in a little water before showings? Your Truly, etc.

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: The 10 Traits of Failure

September 18, 2010

Lets face it, not everyone is cut out for success, just like not everyone is cut out to be a teacher, policeman, parent or CEO. After 25 years of working with businesses, entrepreneurs, sales people and CEOs, I have discovered that there are traits that make people prone to failure. 1) Hate being told no. I have yet to meet anyone that actually likes being told not, but if you tend to have a highly emotional response to be being told no and it sticks with you for days, success will be out of reach. In fact, planet earth will be unpleasant for you because you will be told ‘no’ by lots of people in many ways and many times. It is the meaning that you place on the ‘no’ that really is effecting you. Your ability to not be negatively impacted and then to turn a ‘no’ into ‘yes’ will be critical to creating success. 2) Unwilling to ask for a decision. Most people believe they can delegate this to others trying to avoid rejection and failure. Then they try to hire others to handle this for them because they haven’t developed the discipline of asking for a decision. If you are unwilling to ask for a decision you will only get the leftovers. 3) Believe everything. If you are one of those people that believe everything someone says to you is true, and that what people say is what they will do, your success is at risk. People will say many things to you that are almost meaningless; we aren’t loaning money, we are on a budget, we aren’t buying, we are going to wait until, I have to talk to my wife, and on and on. If you are not able to selectively listen, sorry, you won’t make it. 4) Easily sold on another’s stories . If you happen to be one of those personality types that is gullible and unable to maintain and communicate your conviction, you will fail. You are stuck in some kind of reverse boomerang universe where you intend to convince another of your ideas and end up buying their story instead. 5) Unable to get personal. If you hate asking questions and feel like asking questions is getting ‘too personal’ or ‘prying’ into someone’s business, you will not make it. “What is your income”, “who is the decision maker”,”why can’t you do this”, are questions you will have to learn to asked. 6) Unwilling to reach out of your comfort zone. If you are unwilling to reach out to people that are better connected than you, success will always be out of reach. While the people you know will be important, it is probably the people you have not yet connected with that can most help you. This will require you to get out of your comfort zone and mix it up with people you don’t yet know. 7) Believe lowest price wins. If you believe the lowest price is the reason people buy things, you will always find yourself suffering with cash flow and should become a clerk at WalMart or a waiter in a restaurant. 99.9% of all products on this planet can be replaced by cheaper alternatives. Most of the things that are purchased are not necessary to have, so if a person wanted the lowest price, the thing to do would be to not buy it at all. Price is actually a myth and not the reason people buy anything. I wrote an entire book on this one concept. 8) Believe persistence and pressure is a bad thing. If you are one of those people that was convinced as a child by your parents, teachers, and environment that getting your way is a bad thing, then you should just throw away the success idea. A diamond is only coal until the right amount of pressure is applied for the right amount of time. People normally do not make decisions without someone insisting on it. If you despise pressure or persistence you will find it taking forever to get your business working. 9) Believe selling is a negative thing . Even one small dose of this type of thinking will kill your chances of making it. Your success depends on this one ability probably more than any other single thing. Nothing happens without selling. If you think selling is wrong, unethical or something that someone else needs to do, you will be crushed, especially in this economy. Great success always has at its core leadership that is passionate and committed to selling. 10) Believe the economy is the problem. The economy is problematic, it is not the problem! Success is created over time so during any run at success you will experience all types of economies. The person that makes the economy the variable will become a victim to economic conditions at some point. Successful people can create success in any economy and know how to use all types of economies to flourish in. Success is not for everyone, just those who are willing to do what it takes to get it. Most people just want it and are not willing to train and prepare for it. If you are one of those people that thinks they are going to create success just because you have a good idea and are unwilling to train, invest and prepare for it, I assure you that you will flounder. Everyone has an idea most people are not willing to develop their skills to the point that they can make that idea a reality! On the way to success you will be plagued with competitive threats, industry changes, challenging economies and will find yourself at risk. The average worker reads less than one book a year and then wonders why they don’t make it! To ensure you are successful avoid the traits of failure and make a dedicated commitment to learning everything you can about selling. Selling isn’t a job, but a requirement for creating the success you want. Sales training , sales motivation , daily sales meeting and the development of new sales skills will assist you in your success more than anything else. Grant Cardone is a NY Times Best Selling Author and Sales Training Expert.

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs Sued for Sex Discrimination

September 15, 2010

UPDATE : The lawsuit documents have been added below (hat tip to the WSJ .) Three former Goldman Sachs employees filed a gender bias lawsuit against the firm today, lamenting an “outdated corporate culture” run by, and catering to, men. Plaintiff H. Christina Chen-Oster, a former vice president in convertible bonds, joined Shanna Orlich, a former associate in trading, and Lisa Parisi, a former managing director in asset management, in filing the suit in Federal Court in Manhattan. According to the New York Times and Reuters , they’re taking action on behalf of all female managing directors, vice presidents and associate employees in the last six years. But that’s not as many people as it might seem. According to the NYT , the suit says women comprise only 17 percent of managing directors and 29 percent of vice presidents at Goldman. (Never mind partners, of which women are reportedly only 14 percent.) The suit claims that Goldman pays women less than men, denies them promotions, gives them unfairly harsh feedback, blocks business opportunities and, according to the Wall Street Journal ‘s summary, refuses to adequately train them. It gets worse. Chen-Oster, says the WSJ , claims in the suit that a male colleague groped her after an office party at a topless bar in 1997. Reporting the harassment, she says, hurt her status at the company. Orlich, who, the WSJ notes , holds a combined JD/MBA from Columbia and played on her high school’s varsity golf team, says in the suit that a male senior analyst assigned her the demeaning tasks of setting up his Blackberry and fielding calls from his wife. When she wanted to go golfing with the firm, the boys said no. A Goldman Sachs spokesperson told the WSJ that the suit is without merit. As of this writing, the lawsuit is not yet available on the Public Access to Electronic Court Records website. READ the summons: Goldmansummonses091510

Read the full article →

Trapped Chile Miners Get More Than 1,000 Job Offers

September 14, 2010

SANTIAGO, Chile — Chile’s 33 trapped miners have something good to think about: their next jobs. Bulldozer driver, mechanic, electrician. And here’s a couple they might find particularly useful: “risk reduction specialist” and “escape-tunnel driller.” Two dozen companies with operations in Chile have made more than 1,000 job offers to the trapped miners and their 317 sidelined co-workers at a job fair this week. Even if they choose to go back to mining, the work won’t necessarily be underground and it will almost certainly be with a company with a better safety record than their struggling current employer. The 33 miners have been trapped for 40 days in harrowing, sweltering conditions since an Aug. 5 collapse. No miners in history have been trapped so long, and it still could be months before a hole large enough to get them out is completed. They are getting food, medicine, communication and other essentials through narrower holes dug by rescuers, but their anxiety has become evident, with more questions asked each time they hear the drilling stop. Their relatives wait anxiously for the miners, many in tents at the mine itself, but in many ways life goes on without them. One of them, Ariel Ticona, became a father for the first time Tuesday. The San Esteban mining company, which owns the mine, has pursued bankruptcy protection since the collapse and has claimed it can’t afford to pay the trapped miners, even though they’ll have to work their way out by clearing rubble around the clock below the escape tunnels. The San Jose miners have been offered 1,188 jobs as of Tuesday, many of them posted on a government labor ministry web site. Mining industry companies have interviewed some 200 of the miners who are not trapped at a hotel in the regional capital of Copiapo, and say they have no trouble waiting for the trapped miners to be rescued before they interview them as well. “The 33 won’t be without a job,” vowed Sara Morales, a deputy human resources director for Terra Services, a Chilean drilling company. She told The Associated Press on Tuesday that she had received resumes from 80 miners and will offer 20 of them jobs. There will be no deadline for the trapped miners to take advantage of this “relocation program,” said Jose Tomas Letelier, a vice-president at Canadian gold mining company Kinross. None of the trapped miners should have to venture back into marginal mines like San Jose that struggle to meet Chile’s modern safety standards. Many of these job offers come from some of the world’s most advanced mining companies – major international players making huge investments in Chile. The companies are prepared to have the miners work as truck or bulldozer drivers, heavy equipment operators, electricians, mechanics, and supervisors in various jobs up on the surface. Kinross alone is offering 46 positions, including risk reduction specialist. “As the name suggests, it’s to prevent risks in mining, which is a very risky activity … it’s a very important role,” Letelier said. Even without the government-organized job offers, the miners shouldn’t lack for work in the industry. Chile’s mining sector is booming, with $50 billion in new investment expected in the next five years, making skilled mining workers increasingly hard to find. “It’s already difficult today to find certain kinds of operators,” Letelier said. Some of the jobs being offered to the miners seem risky – like the four “explosives handler” positions the San Geronimo mining company seeks to fill. Some of the spouses of the trapped men have warned them to give up mining or else. Lila Ramirez has said her marriage to 63-year-old Mario Gomez will be over if he returns to the mines. And Carola Narvaez, whose husband, Raul Bustos, is stuck underground, said a few days after the miners were found alive that “in my heart, I don’t want him to ever return to the mines.” Asked if she thought her husband would be willing to give up the relatively good wages a man can make in mining – and if she would have the power to convince him otherwise – she flashed a bittersweet smile and shrugged. “Every man has to work,” she said. Miners who narrowly escaped the San Jose collapse have said they chose to work at the marginal gold and copper mine precisely because its added risk meant the San Esteban mining company had to pay slightly better wages. The San Jose mine lacks safety measures such as an escape tunnel, and just weeks before the collapse, falling rock cost one worker his leg. Dozens of engineers are now working day and night to construct and maintain the three giant drills that the government has brought in to reach the miners. Two drills have been put into service, but one of them was out of commission for six days after breaking when it hit an iron bar. That drill, known as the “Plan B” drill, was working again Tuesday after engineers used magnets to pull out a large shattered piece and replacement parts were flown in from the United States. A massive “Plan C” drill is expected to be operational by Sept. 20. Once the drills break through to the bottom reaches of the mine, they’ll have to do it all over again, widening the tunnels just enough to be able to pull the men out one by one. Experts believe it will be early November before the last miner is rescued. Worry gave way to joy for Ticona on Tuesday when his wife, Elizabeth Segovia, gave birth to their daughter by cesarean section. The couple had planned to name the girl Carolina, but Ticona had a change of heart by the time he and a relative had a recorded video chat through a fiber-optic cable connection. “Tell her to change the name of our daughter … and give her a long-distance kiss!” Ticona said as the other miners shouted, “We’re going to name her Esperanza!” – the Spanish word for hope. Segovia told Chile’s Canal 13 network that she had exactly the same thought. ___ Associated Press Writers Federico Quilodran in Santiago, Aliosha Marquez in Copiapo, Brad Brooks at the San Jose mine and Frank Bajak in Bogota contributed to this story.

Read the full article →

Byron Gamble, Former FedEx Employee, Desperate To Find A Job

September 12, 2010

Byron Gamble, who lost his job as a FedEx driver almost a year ago, is desperate for a paycheck and to live with his wife and children again.

Read the full article →

Dave Logan: Why Business Books Suck

September 9, 2010

So just why are business books so bad for you? A short BNET blog post gave the sound bites and generated a lot of buzz. This blog is about the deeper and more troubling problem with business books, which, in a nutshell, is that they’re too much about Star Wars and not enough about Glee . Most business books are based on a storyline that you’ve heard so many times it’s in your bone marrow. It’s satisfying in a way that combines rediscovering a part of you with the joy of doing what seems impossible. It’s the “hero’s journey,” first described by Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces . Most of us became aware of it in Star Wars , when George Lucas turned Campbell’s work into a template for his original three movies. Popular writers, not being the most creative lot, used the template for movies/remakes/novels like Batman , The Matrix , ET , Avatar , Spiderman , the Karate Kid , and Harry Potter . And in the 90s, business books writers jumped on what seemed to be the best way ever to tell a story, provided your aim is to make a lot of money. Here’s the super short version of the hero’s journey, told from the male perspective: Boy is bored and along comes an adventure. He resists it, but eventually has no choice but to accept. He meets a teacher, usually older and very powerful. There is a setback, and the boy feels all alone. He works hard, guided by his teacher and some new friends. Then comes the final contest, when he must battle a foe that appears invincible. Although he is initially injured, he uses all that he’s learned to overcome it, and becomes the victor. So what’s the problem here? In the form it’s being used, the hero’s journey focuses on personal achievement, not on leading others. The closest the story gets to leadership is being a role model for other heroes. The full problem with the hero’s journey, including a hint of something very important from George Lucas, is explored in a longer piece . What if you get an entire group of people all trying to be Luke Skywalker (or Neo or Spiderman)? You get a mammoth clashing of egos, all struggling for supremacy and destroying everything around them. In two words, Wall Street. Or management of most major companies. Glee is not a different story than Star Wars , it’s what comes next. After the boy becomes a hero, he (Mr. Schuester, the teacher in Glee ) finds people looking for the next step, and the hero assembles a tribe (or club in Glee or a fellowship, for fans of JRR Tolkien). The hero, stumbling at first, finds something within the tribe that will inspire them, and allow them to see their “tribalness.” In Glee , this is the love of music and self-expression. There’s talk of a mission, or a project — “regionals” in Glee . But there’s a growing tension in the hero between his ego and the needs of the group, in a process Warren Bennis calls “the crucible.” This tension leads to a period of isolation and introspection when the hero has to figure out what’s really important: Self or the tribe. In Glee , this period included the collapse of the teacher’s personal life, including the revealed false pregnancy of his wife, the failed start to a new relationship, and career setbacks. Without any evidence of success, the hero returns, commits to the tribe, and becomes a leader. The leader shifts his identity to the point where he is now almost synonymous with the tribe, and leads it to a small victory — sectionals in Glee . Now the villains swarm, including people who failed their own crucible test (Sue Sylvester, the epitome of ego unchecked), betrayal within the tribe, wimps (people who never successfully became heroes, like the spineless school principal). All of these challenges climax in the biggest test with another tribe that uses deception (or “evil arts” for Tolkien fans) to win. The final test isn’t hero to villain. It’s tribe to tribe. The tribe wins only if all of its members have also transitioned from hero to leader. A tribe of leaders is nearly unstoppable. The Glee saga isn’t over, but I will be willing to bet they triumph over evil in the end. Take a current company in the news: Zappos. Many books that have written about the story follow the hero’s journey, making it all about CEO Tony Hsieh. As Tony has said several times, that’s not just simplistic, it’s wrong. Zappos is a story about the culture. In other words, it’s more Glee than Star Wars . Glee-type stories don’t follow steps as carefully as Star Wars -inspired plots. It’s more of a dance, and less of a checklist. The lessons are complex, but far more important for business, especially in this age of interconnection when success is almost, by definition, an ensemble event. Hero’s journey stories are all around us. Is your story more like Glee ? If so, I hope you’ll tell it in brief in the comments below. Follow me on Twitter and Facebook .

Read the full article →

Alfred Gingold: CHASE HOME WEASEL UPDATE

September 7, 2010

For a couple of weeks after my post about Chase Home Finance’s continuing attempts to defraud my wife and me , things were all quiet on the mortgage front, almost. We mailed in our August payment early (just principle and interest, just what we owe), so it would arrive well before August 1st. We can’t pay online now, as the “make payment” option automatically includes $563.36 of fictive escrow. We received an email on July 24th acknowledging and thanking us for our payment. Three days later, the 27th, we received another email saying our mortgage payment was coming due. On August 3th, we received a email saying our mortgage payment hadn’t been paid and we received precisely that same message every weekday for the rest of the month. After the 16th, the messages added a $33.71 late fee to the sum we were said to owe. Evidently, we had not gotten through to them. It was not for lack of trying. The very day after we received Chase’s letter detailing our imagined delinquencies and its latest escrow dreams, we faxed a politer-than-they-deserved letter and the canceled checks, etc. that proved our case. No response. Then we emailed the qualified professionals at Chase Customer Care Online, whose reply made it abundantly clear that no qualified professionals had read our email. Finally, I broke down and called, something I’d hoped to avoid doing, because whenever I speak to a Chase Customer Care professional, my blood pressure spikes, or least it feels that way. This call was no different. After explaining everything to a Chase Customer Care Pro, I was told I need to explain it all again to a CCC Pro of the Tax Department persuasion. My call was patched through to a guy named Ken (first names only at Chase Customer Care!). Ken took my name, asked me to wait a moment and promptly disconnected me. Called back and spoke to Carmina, who put me through to someone named Synina; maybe I should stick to CCC Pros whose names rhyme? Synina listened politely to my story, assigned our case a work order number, 135331499, and said the matter would take two weeks to clear up. Two weeks later, we’d heard nothing from Chase aside from ten more emails saying our August payment had not been received. Then on August 25th, just as we were about to leave town for vacation, August mortgage payment sent off, we received both a letter and a call from Chase. The call came from the Department of Dunning, a bewildered soul who kept repeating that our August payment was due even as I ventilated on the subject of the check the bank has acknowledged and, more important, cashed and, more broadly, the perfidy and general loathsomeness of her employer. Soon I was on the phone w ith JoAnne of the Tax Department. She had a soothing voice and a polite manner and she assured me that the whole situation would be resolved in the not-too-distant. The letter was from the Chase Insurance Processing Center, informing us that if we didn’t send proof of insurance within two weeks, Chase would take out a policy for us and escrow us for it. We thought it odd to hear from the Insurance Processing Center at this moment, since we haven’t missed or even been late with an insurance payment since 2006. Does Chase’s right hand knows what the left one is stealing? We wondered, faxed proof of insurance and left town in pouring rain, hopeful we might be nearing the end of this particular Chase scam. We got home a week later. More mail from Chase! Our August payment had been accepted without late penalties or escrow and our neighbor’s water bill is now gone from the list of our “delinquencies” (thanks, JoAnne). Still, September mortgage statement states we owe $496.63 in escrow, $66 less than before, but still $496.63 more than we owe. Perhaps Chase’s rapacity would be less galling if JP Morgan Chase didn’t lead all other banks in money spent on lobbying congress , or if they hadn’t paid a $28 million dollar settlement so the federal government wouldn’t pursue charges that Chase deceived borrowers and engaged in abusive practices . A company that spends like that really should stay away from petty larceny; it’s unseemly as well as being, you know, criminal. I’m trying to give Chase Home Weasel the benefit of the doubt. It’s been a hot summer (though I bet the Chase’s downtown mother ship is as cool as a wine cellar) and Chase Home Weasel has been foreclosing on its borrowers’ home and dragging its corporate feet on those HAMP loan modifications the government pays the banks to do. On the other hand, screw’em. I’m thinking small claims court.

Read the full article →

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Status Symbols and the American Express Black Card

August 31, 2010

As a seventeen-year-old student at Rabbinical college, a riddle was put to me. A beggar is invited to a billionaire’s home for dinner. The homeless man has never had such scrumptious food. He throws his entire being into slopping down his soup and devouring his chicken. Meanwhile, the rich man puts a napkin on his lap, sticks out a pinky, and eats with meticulous etiquette. The question, which of the two men is more attached to the food? I answered, ‘Why, the poor man, of course. He’s wolfing the stuff down as if it’s his last meal.’ ‘Wrong,’ my teacher told me. ‘The rich man is much more attached. Want proof? Try taking the food away from each. For the poor man its easy-come-easy-go. He ate on the street yesterday, he’ll find a way to make do today. But the rich man? Just try taking away his meal. His butler will assault you, the police will be called, his lawyer will sue…’ You get the picture. As America endures its worst recession since the great depression, a cleansing of sorts is taking place. All the status symbols that give our lives meaning — designer clothes, fancy cars, expensive jewelry — are becoming outside our reach. Now status symbols are strange things. Who would have thought Dolce and Gabbana on our backside, Prada on our feet, and a $9,000 Birkin bag on our shoulder would make us feel so good about ourselves. But, curiously, we spend our lives pursuing these ephemeral and flimsy objects that somehow lend significance to our lives. Descartes may have said, “I think, therefore I am.” But in America we respond, “I have, therefore I am.” But in this recession, our status symbols are under threat. How attached have we become to these things? Will our egos survive their absence? Most importantly, will we finally fill the void with new status symbols of greater depth and more lasting endurance? Tiger Woods just lost his wife. His career is also going down the toilet. Which makes him feel worse? The answer, of course, depends on which was the real pillar of his self-esteem, his money and celebrity or his family. Values, of course, create character. A love of money creates a greedy character while a love of people creates a nurturing character. But what is often overlooked is how values also determine a culture’s status symbols. A culture that values wealth will develop super-expensive cars and gold encrusted watches that people compete to purchase. And a culture that values virtue will develop status symbols based on public service. After Ted Turner pledged $1 billion in 1997 to the UN, he made the valid point that the Forbes 400 list prevented many of his friends from following suit. They feared that if they gave away a large portion of their wealth they would fall off the list. For many, status is attained through the hording of wealth. But a little over a decade later Bill Gates and Warren Buffet obliterated that model by creating a new status symbol: giving away half your assets in your lifetime, making it almost embarrassing to remain on the Forbes list with all your assets intact. A conversation last week with an executive assistant to American Express CEO Ken Chenault, gave me an epiphany about my own susceptibility to shallow symbols of status, even though I decried all such nonsense in my 2009 book about the near-collapse of the American economy, The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger . In 1994, while serving as Rabbi at Oxford University, I took my wife for our wedding anniversary to the Winter Olympics in Lillehammer. After an evening event we found ourselves in a freezing village late at night with no way to get back to our hotel in Oslo. I saw a bus passing and it stopped to pick us up. Turns out there were several British executives from American Express on board. One was charged with launching a new card — a black card — in the UK as a pilot. The Centurion Card was meant to be American Express’s most elite card and, though the necessary earnings and spending were completely outside my reach, the executive and I became friendly and, having heard that my organization regularly hosts world leaders lecturing to Oxford’s students, he found what I do interesting and offered me the card. Since it was a few years before the card made it into the US, it was a novelty to all who saw it. I was reluctant to ever show it off. Still, I knew I had it in my wallet. Turns out that amid the status it was far from the blessing I thought it would be. Every year American Express raised the membership fee it until it was completely outside our budget (unbelievably, the policy is to keep the fee even if they cancel the card). Were they crazy? And especially for the abysmal service it offered. A concierge that was often incompetent, travel ‘professionals’ who were well-meaning but so often inept. Account managers who were impossible to reach. I complained numerous times and was apologized to by the head of Centurion in the US, who acknowledged the poor service I had received and promised to make it better. Regardless, the mistakes continued and the service remained highly substandard. Matters came to a head when a temporary hold was put on the card because of a bicycle I bought from my brother’s business and American Expresses’ simple inability to distinguish between me, the cardholder, and my brother, an American Express merchant of many years. The hold was, of course, quickly removed but rather than the apology I had requested from Mr. Chenault’s office, so that he be made aware of the considerable problems with Centurion, what followed was a painful and arrogant phone call from an insufferable corporate type in the CEO’s office which only reinforced for me all the negative stereotypes that Americans have about credit card companies and their contemptuous treatment of those who make their businesses possible. It was then that I had my epiphany. The next day, as I discussed my unfortunate experiences with another of Chenault’s executive assistants, she asked me, given my abysmal experience with the card, why did I even want it? I went silent. I wished to give her an honest response. So here it is. For all the books and columns I had written about how the viper of materialism had coiled itself around the American soul, and for all the lectures I had given to audiences around the world about how we are drowning our children in an ocean of excess, and for all the resources I am prepared to put into giving each of my nine children a Jewish education in religious schools so that they have a values-based education, I somehow found this silly piece of metal edifying. I could not admit it to myself but, having fallen into a club outside my means, I had also fallen victim to a simple marketing ploy that told me that possessing a rarity reserved for exclusive members – however ridiculously exorbitant and useless – somehow made me special. Lois XIV, of France, the Sun King, confronted a dilemma as sovereign. Kings earned the loyalty of Dukes and Barons by granting large tracts of land. But the grants depleted the holdings of the Crown and the taxes they brought in. How could he sustain the loyalty of his most powerful subjects without giving away the realm? He came up with an ingenious solution: create a new status symbol that will cost him nothing and will simultaneously display the subordination of the barons to the King. Thus was born the almost laughable spectacle in Versailles of the daily royal dressing, know as the levee (rising). The King would awaken and the nobles of the realm would compete to take away his chamberpot, remove his nightshirt, and dress him with his britches. Incredibly, the nobles actually purchased the privilege of grande entrée, which commenced when the king’s nightshirt was pulled over his head. When it comes to status symbols you can make anyone your sucker. My black American Express had become my own royal chamberpot. My experience immediately called to mind a recent, brilliant op-ed by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal entitled, ‘We Pay them to Abuse us,’ which followed Steven Slater’s meltdown on JetBlue where passengers were subjected to his profanity-laced harangue after paying JetBlue to fly on the plane. Here, I was the sucker who had strained to pay a membership fee to be subject to corporate America’s shocking arrogance and to endure degrading phone calls from their executive offices. In the 1980′s American Express conducted a smear campaign against the celebrated orthodox Jewish banker and philanthropist Edmond Safra, brilliantly chronicled by renowned journalist Bryan Burrough in his best-seller ‘Vendetta: American Express and the Smearing of Banking Rival Edmond Safra.’ Safra, who was a major supporter of my work at Oxford University and sponsored an annual lecture for my organization that each year featured a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, including Elie Wiesel and Mikhail Gorbachev, won an apology and $8 million from American Express, all of which he donated to charity. The case, with its insinuations of anti-Semitism from what was perceived at the time to be a Waspy American Express, did much to tarnish the reputation of the bank and ultimately led to a change in management. In 2001 Chenault became only the third African-American CEO of a Fortune 500 company. That is, of course, something to be admired. But it would be nice to know that the executives of America’s most important companies change not only their personnel but their attitudes as well. Every company has the right to promote their status symbols and we, the public, have a right to either buy into them or rise above them. But in this age of Wall Street greed, corporate aloofness, and abusive employees, it would be nice to see companies that still believe, and insist, that the customer is king and should be treated with simple courtesy and respect. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the host of ‘The Shmuley Show’ on 77 WABC in NYC, America’s most listened-to talk radio station. He is the international best-selling author of 23 books and was the London Times Preacher of the Year at the Millennium. As host of ‘Shalom in the Home’ on TLC he won the National Fatherhood Award and his syndicated column was awarded the American Jewish Press Association’s Highest Award for Excellence in Commentary. Newsweek calls him ‘the most famous Rabbi in America.’ He has just published ‘Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life.’ Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Read the full article →

Karen Mills: SBA Disaster Assistance: Then and Now

August 26, 2010

Tommy and Maria DeLaune are a prime example of small business owners who suffered a one-two punch from Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater BP oil spill. They run Tommy’s Seafood, a New Orleans seafood processor and wholesaler that employs about 20 people. When Hurricane Katrina hit, the business suffered major damage at its two facilities, including loss of equipment and inventory. They applied for an SBA disaster loan in October 2005 but didn’t get approved until May 2006 and the loan wasn’t fully disbursed until October 2006, a year later. They got hit again when the oil spill forced closures on fishing waters in the Gulf of Mexico, where their suppliers work. Tommy and his wife Maria had to look 500 miles away to find more seafood to process, so they had higher expenses and lower profit margins. This time around, however, their experience with SBA was “amazing,” according to Maria. Their disaster loan was approved in just 16 days and it was fully disbursed just a month later. Additionally, SBA deferred their existing Katrina loan for 12 months so they can use more of their resources to deal with the financial strain caused by the oil spill. Right now, hundreds of SBA staff are on the ground providing assistance through loans to business owners, homeowners, and renters in more than 40 locations across the country that have been hit by disasters. SBA’s disaster loan programs are a critical piece of the federal government’s overall response in the wake of disasters, and we are providing these loans more quickly and effectively than ever before. As we approach the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, it is important to look back and take note of the agency’s performance at that time. SBA was not prepared, nor fully equipped to effectively provide assistance in the wake of that disaster. But we’ve learned from our mistakes and, today, we have a much better disaster assistance program in place with increased staff, improved technology and training, and a streamlined loan process. What does that mean in real terms? It means we reduced the average processing time for disaster loans from over 70 days to just 10 days. It means we created a way for disaster victims to apply online for loans, and now 30% of applicants choose to use this method. It means we dramatically increased the capacity of our disaster loan processing centers (from 366 to 1,750 workstations) and our disaster credit management system (from 800 up to 10,000 users at the same time). It means we increased the number of SBA disaster staff from 800 to 1,200. Additionally, we have more than 1,500 active reserve and 500 ready reserve on call when needed. And, it’s important to note that in our last annual survey, 83 percent of the active reservists and 63 percent of the ready reservists said they were available to be deployed with 48 hours notice. The overhaul of the SBA disaster assistance program since Katrina has resulted in vast improvements that are helping us and our federal partners meet the needs of disaster victims more quickly than ever – helping people like Tommy and Maria DeLaune. Everyone at SBA remains committed to continuing to improve and strengthen this critical program. We know that it can – and is – making the difference in local communities across the country, helping families get back in their homes and helping businesses put employees back to work. Read more from the Hurricane Katrina: 5 Years of Remembering & Rebuilding series . This post originally appeared at The White House Blog .

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Living Downwind from the Flower Shop

August 24, 2010

One of the great mysteries in life is why some of us prefer to be swamp-dwellers. Not literally. I’m not dissing those living in the low country of the Gulf States or, frankly, anyone stuck in less than pristine living conditions. No, what I’m talking about is why some of us choose to be prisoners of our own minds. My grandmother used to tell me, “Some days, you need an escort to take you through that dangerous neighborhood that is your mind.” Ask a thoughtful swamp-dweller why they perennially veer toward the negative and they may tell you that low expectations translate into less disappointment in their lives. In fact, philosopher William James once wrote that self-esteem could be distilled down to an equation: success in life divided by expectations. Recent studies have shown that Asian-American students coming from families with high academic expectations of them tend to have lower self-esteem even when they score very well on their exams, so maybe there’s some truth to this. But, low expectations can also translate into less success when one’s spirit and motivation is poisoned by a lack of hope, meaning, or possibility in one’s life. In the context of business, we’re all aware that some corporate cultures create a momentum of victory while others create a constant feeling of failure. Given that my company often takes over the management of hotels that are in a downward spiral, I know the signs of a troubled culture: passive aggressive communication, lots of finger pointing, and universally low expectations. Yet, there are many companies that have risen from their swamp whether it’s Continental Airlines with a newcomer CEO Gordon Bethune in the 90′s or Apple with returning CEO Steve Jobs at around that same time. In both cases, these execs first had to help all in the organization believe in themselves again and identify a few initial victories that they could point to in order to start building that momentum of victory. My son has just been released from prison after a Federal Judge found that his constitutional rights had been violated (due to mistaken jury instructions). While he was initially ecstatic about being out after being wrongly accused for four and a half years, he started to gravitate back to familiar territory: Will the County District Attorney choose to appeal the Judge’s ruling? Of course, this has enormous implications for his life, but it’s also something he has little influence over and, for the time being, there’s so much life to catch up on and to celebrate that obsessing on the D.A.’s actions can become a no-win game. One of the responsibilities of friends and family is to escort each other through the dark alleys of our minds when there are sunny, open spaces just around the corner. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend the past few days in Montana with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (and his wife Isabella), the author of Flow and many other books on how to live an optimal life. One of the basic premises of Flow is that life is at its best when we’re expertly navigating between challenge and skill. Think of a graph with two axes: with challenge on the vertical axis and skill on the horizontal axis. Flow occurs as we move diagonally away from the intersection of these two axes toward the upper right hand corner. But, most of us spend our lives toggling between boredom (low challenge, high skill) and anxiety (high challenge, low skill) living a life that feels too full of inertia or exertion. Mihaly says someone in Flow …concentrates their attention on a limited stimulus field, forgets personal problems, loses their sense of time and of themselves, feels competent and in control, and has a sense of harmony with their surroundings…they cease to worry about whether the activity will be productive or whether it will be rewarded…they have entered a state of flow. This is true of individuals inside and outside of work as well as companies that pursue an organizational predilection toward Flow. Manifesting a good life by just thinking positive thoughts is not enough. There’s no doubt that healthy psycho-hygiene creates a greater likelihood of living a life in flow with the world. But, I prefer to think of this as more like planting yourself “downwind from the flower shop.” Your willingness to build your skills and to accept challenges — emotionally, professionally, intellectually, athletically, spiritually — is your means of placing your destiny at a fortuitous intersection where good things come wafting your way. To understand how to find that flow in your life, read Mihaly’s book of the same name or Finding Flow or Good Business (to understand the context for work) or The Evolving Self (how Flow can make a difference to society).

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Living Downwind from the Flower Shop

August 24, 2010

One of the great mysteries in life is why some of us prefer to be swamp-dwellers. Not literally. I’m not dissing those living in the low country of the Gulf States or, frankly, anyone stuck in less than pristine living conditions. No, what I’m talking about is why some of us choose to be prisoners of our own minds. My grandmother used to tell me, “Some days, you need an escort to take you through that dangerous neighborhood that is your mind.” Ask a thoughtful swamp-dweller why they perennially veer toward the negative and they may tell you that low expectations translate into less disappointment in their lives. In fact, philosopher William James once wrote that self-esteem could be distilled down to an equation: success in life divided by expectations. Recent studies have shown that Asian-American students coming from families with high academic expectations of them tend to have lower self-esteem even when they score very well on their exams, so maybe there’s some truth to this. But, low expectations can also translate into less success when one’s spirit and motivation is poisoned by a lack of hope, meaning, or possibility in one’s life. In the context of business, we’re all aware that some corporate cultures create a momentum of victory while others create a constant feeling of failure. Given that my company often takes over the management of hotels that are in a downward spiral, I know the signs of a troubled culture: passive aggressive communication, lots of finger pointing, and universally low expectations. Yet, there are many companies that have risen from their swamp whether it’s Continental Airlines with a newcomer CEO Gordon Bethune in the 90′s or Apple with returning CEO Steve Jobs at around that same time. In both cases, these execs first had to help all in the organization believe in themselves again and identify a few initial victories that they could point to in order to start building that momentum of victory. My son has just been released from prison after a Federal Judge found that his constitutional rights had been violated (due to mistaken jury instructions). While he was initially ecstatic about being out after being wrongly accused for four and a half years, he started to gravitate back to familiar territory: Will the County District Attorney choose to appeal the Judge’s ruling? Of course, this has enormous implications for his life, but it’s also something he has little influence over and, for the time being, there’s so much life to catch up on and to celebrate that obsessing on the D.A.’s actions can become a no-win game. One of the responsibilities of friends and family is to escort each other through the dark alleys of our minds when there are sunny, open spaces just around the corner. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend the past few days in Montana with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (and his wife Isabella), the author of Flow and many other books on how to live an optimal life. One of the basic premises of Flow is that life is at its best when we’re expertly navigating between challenge and skill. Think of a graph with two axes: with challenge on the vertical axis and skill on the horizontal axis. Flow occurs as we move diagonally away from the intersection of these two axes toward the upper right hand corner. But, most of us spend our lives toggling between boredom (low challenge, high skill) and anxiety (high challenge, low skill) living a life that feels too full of inertia or exertion. Mihaly says someone in Flow …concentrates their attention on a limited stimulus field, forgets personal problems, loses their sense of time and of themselves, feels competent and in control, and has a sense of harmony with their surroundings…they cease to worry about whether the activity will be productive or whether it will be rewarded…they have entered a state of flow. This is true of individuals inside and outside of work as well as companies that pursue an organizational predilection toward Flow. Manifesting a good life by just thinking positive thoughts is not enough. There’s no doubt that healthy psycho-hygiene creates a greater likelihood of living a life in flow with the world. But, I prefer to think of this as more like planting yourself “downwind from the flower shop.” Your willingness to build your skills and to accept challenges — emotionally, professionally, intellectually, athletically, spiritually — is your means of placing your destiny at a fortuitous intersection where good things come wafting your way. To understand how to find that flow in your life, read Mihaly’s book of the same name or Finding Flow or Good Business (to understand the context for work) or The Evolving Self (how Flow can make a difference to society).

Read the full article →

Chip Conley: Living Downwind from the Flower Shop

August 24, 2010

One of the great mysteries in life is why some of us prefer to be swamp-dwellers. Not literally. I’m not dissing those living in the low country of the Gulf States or, frankly, anyone stuck in less than pristine living conditions. No, what I’m talking about is why some of us choose to be prisoners of our own minds. My grandmother used to tell me, “Some days, you need an escort to take you through that dangerous neighborhood that is your mind.” Ask a thoughtful swamp-dweller why they perennially veer toward the negative and they may tell you that low expectations translate into less disappointment in their lives. In fact, philosopher William James once wrote that self-esteem could be distilled down to an equation: success in life divided by expectations. Recent studies have shown that Asian-American students coming from families with high academic expectations of them tend to have lower self-esteem even when they score very well on their exams, so maybe there’s some truth to this. But, low expectations can also translate into less success when one’s spirit and motivation is poisoned by a lack of hope, meaning, or possibility in one’s life. In the context of business, we’re all aware that some corporate cultures create a momentum of victory while others create a constant feeling of failure. Given that my company often takes over the management of hotels that are in a downward spiral, I know the signs of a troubled culture: passive aggressive communication, lots of finger pointing, and universally low expectations. Yet, there are many companies that have risen from their swamp whether it’s Continental Airlines with a newcomer CEO Gordon Bethune in the 90′s or Apple with returning CEO Steve Jobs at around that same time. In both cases, these execs first had to help all in the organization believe in themselves again and identify a few initial victories that they could point to in order to start building that momentum of victory. My son has just been released from prison after a Federal Judge found that his constitutional rights had been violated (due to mistaken jury instructions). While he was initially ecstatic about being out after being wrongly accused for four and a half years, he started to gravitate back to familiar territory: Will the County District Attorney choose to appeal the Judge’s ruling? Of course, this has enormous implications for his life, but it’s also something he has little influence over and, for the time being, there’s so much life to catch up on and to celebrate that obsessing on the D.A.’s actions can become a no-win game. One of the responsibilities of friends and family is to escort each other through the dark alleys of our minds when there are sunny, open spaces just around the corner. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend the past few days in Montana with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (and his wife Isabella), the author of Flow and many other books on how to live an optimal life. One of the basic premises of Flow is that life is at its best when we’re expertly navigating between challenge and skill. Think of a graph with two axes: with challenge on the vertical axis and skill on the horizontal axis. Flow occurs as we move diagonally away from the intersection of these two axes toward the upper right hand corner. But, most of us spend our lives toggling between boredom (low challenge, high skill) and anxiety (high challenge, low skill) living a life that feels too full of inertia or exertion. Mihaly says someone in Flow …concentrates their attention on a limited stimulus field, forgets personal problems, loses their sense of time and of themselves, feels competent and in control, and has a sense of harmony with their surroundings…they cease to worry about whether the activity will be productive or whether it will be rewarded…they have entered a state of flow. This is true of individuals inside and outside of work as well as companies that pursue an organizational predilection toward Flow. Manifesting a good life by just thinking positive thoughts is not enough. There’s no doubt that healthy psycho-hygiene creates a greater likelihood of living a life in flow with the world. But, I prefer to think of this as more like planting yourself “downwind from the flower shop.” Your willingness to build your skills and to accept challenges — emotionally, professionally, intellectually, athletically, spiritually — is your means of placing your destiny at a fortuitous intersection where good things come wafting your way. To understand how to find that flow in your life, read Mihaly’s book of the same name or Finding Flow or Good Business (to understand the context for work) or The Evolving Self (how Flow can make a difference to society).

Read the full article →

Andrea Chalupa: Garbage Moguls: God Bless the Eco-Capitalists

August 21, 2010

The BP oil spill has nothing on the hundreds of miles of garbage floating in the Atlantic Ocean , and its bigger sibling, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch , a plastic-soup in the Pacific Ocean estimated to span the size of the continental U.S. Our oceans are our landfills, a fact that nags at me with every take-out container and other piece of trash I dispose of in my kitchen. I’m just one person making all this trash, and my internal-dialogue now sounds like the hitchhiker woman in Five Easy Pieces : “Pretty soon there won’t be room for anyone!” I admit that these three horesemen of the enviornmental apocolypse have me seriously considering the possibility of reincarnation. To hell with future generations, what if we are forced to join them, in the mess that we’re creating? Enter the eco-capitalists, please. Garbage Moguls , a show airing tonight on the National Geographic Channel, follows Tom Szaky, the 28-year-old Princeton University drop-out and founding CEO of TerraCycle , a New Jersey-based company that reincarnates trash into incredibly cool stuff, from messenger bags to kites to lunch boxes and picture frames. Albe Zakes, Tom’s right-hand man and one of the stars of the show that takes you inside TerraCycle as it tries to win-over big corporate clients, sums it up in a press release: With shows like Jersey Shore and The Real Housewives of New Jersey as popular as they are, it seems it was only a matter of time before a New Jersey TV show about ACTUAL trash got made. On Saturday August 21st, National Geographic will air three all-new episodes of Garbage Moguls, an inside look at the zany way TerraCycle, “the coolest little start-up in America” ( Inc. magazine), develops products made completely out of trash. Drama rears its tense head as TerraCycle’s team has two weeks to create an entire line of pet products for Pedigree by making leashes, collars, and pet clothes out of dog food bags. In another episode on tonight, Tom pitches Home Depot a garbage can made of chip wrappers, and in the third also on tonight, the design team has to create a suit jacket made of Target shopping bags and an entire line of new products. All this reality show goodness jump starts the catchphrase, “Why buy new?” If TerraCycle and more companies like it take hold of the mainstream, we won’t have to. There’s a viewing party tonight on Twitter. Just follow @TerraCycle and use #garbagemoguls to interact with the TerraCycle team. Follow it up with trivia questions on the TerraCycle Facebook fan page , to enter to win cool TerraCycle prizes. While these eco-capitalists are pouring their blood, sweat, and presumably some tears into the next great industrial revolution, Colin Beavan has a handy list of tips on how you and I can create less trash , meaning less fights over whose turn it is to take it out. Colin and his wife Michelle Conlin, busy parents, spent a year living “no-impact.” They drastically reduced their carbon footprint and continue to incorproate these strategies into their hectic New York lifestyle. Garbage Moguls premiers tonight 8-11 PM ET/PT. For clips and more info, check out the National Geographic Channel . And for more on living no-impact and greening your life, check out the No Impact Project .

Read the full article →

Wendy N. Powell: Refusing to Hire the Unemployed

August 16, 2010

Joe was at the top of his game. He was a well-respected manager when his wife’s job tanked, forcing the dual income couple to go into quick action. The wife found employment out of town and bid a fond farewell. “We’ll only have to be a commuter family for awhile,” they thought. After all, Joe can get a new job with his credentials. You’ve heard the rest of this employment story before. Joe thought that he would get a quick response to his job search. He pushed out his résumé expecting results. As a suddenly unemployed professional, Joe applied for countless employment opportunities that seemed like perfect fits, but could not get a single interview. “What is going on?” he thought. “I have all of the qualifications, but it doesn’t seem to matter.” Joe was coming face-to-face with a new and all-too-common HR trend — refusal to hire the unemployed. According to the U.S. Department of Labor July 2010 unemployment report , 9.5% of Americans are currently unemployed. In that 9.5% sit amazingly qualified individuals who have lost their jobs due to factors that have nothing to do with their performance — the economy, company mergers, hostile takeovers or a firm’s realization that it can no longer afford the employee who earned tons of merit-based bonuses and promotions over the years. Now isn’t that motivating for those of us who are high achievers and contributors? Of course companies layoff employees who are not contributing to the bottom line, but too many people lose their jobs because of conditions that have nothing to do with their performance. What about that talented sea of people, the new version of the starving artist, who is overly qualified for the position? Many unemployed workers are Baby Boomers who made too much money. Are we planning on tossing away this sector of our society that solidly meets the posted selection criteria? Is this the American way? Are we going to be relegated to the freeway off ramp in a suit waving our resumes to the passersby? I’ve seen it and it sickens me. What about the very talented students who are soon to be fresh out of college with no jobs? Are companies planning to discount that sector of society as well? Now, if employees want to get ahead of the employment curve and look for job opportunities while they are still employed, let me tell you this: if the company gets wind of your job hunt, they will view you as disloyal and show you the door. Just this week it happened to a stunning former colleague who was trying to do just that, find a job while still employed. Yep, they found his resume on Career Builder , and he was fired. He has now joined this new category of discounted candidates. Another employment Catch-22? I think so. Employers Sure you have throngs of candidates that you must evaluate. Sure you need to make decisions based on solid relevant data. You need to follow your selection criteria, really? What a novel idea. Yes, this is the key. Employers write up solid and defensible selection criteria, post it, use available tools to find the qualified candidates and follow it. That is the way you will hire the right candidate. If you don’t want to spend time wading through cabinets full of résumés and cover letters, there are wonderful internet search tools out there that you can use on job posting sites to weed out unqualified candidates before they get to the point of serious consideration. Perhaps the cream will rise to the top of the employment heap and the most qualified will become more evidently consistent with your criteria. Many employers claim that they can’t afford the staff necessary to screen all of the qualified candidates. In the end, it’s a much less expensive process than paying attorney fees to defend your hiring practices in a challenge. Candidates Job candidates, you need to be prepared to explain your qualifications and prove that the employer should and can afford to hire you. Put it out there, front and center! Tailor your résumé to the position. It’s more important now than ever because of the competition. Be ready to explain exactly what you can do for the company. Make yourself indispensable. Maybe more of these qualified and unemployed candidates can band together and call out those employers who flatly discount the unemployed workers in favor of unethical selection criteria. Perhaps the huddled masses will be able to prove that hiring practices are tied to the traditional statutory rights of age, race, sex, with virtually no assessment of real job qualifications. New Legislation Finally employers take note of the new HIRE Act , signed by President Obama on March 18, 2010. The bi-partisan “Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010″ provides incentives and tax relief to private business and encourages the hiring of unemployed workers. The provisions of the HIRE Act include: Applies to employees hired between Feb 3, 2010 & Jan 1, 2011 Exemption of the public sector employer’s 6.2% share of the Social Security payroll tax for the employee (if unemployed for 60 days or more or worked fewer than 40 hours for another employer during that period) for the rest of 2010. If the new employee remains on the payroll for 52 weeks, there is additional eligibility for a tax credit of up to1,000 on the tax return for 2011. The employee must make at least 80% of the pay received in the first 26 weeks of employment. Hire the most qualified candidate and not just the son of your cousin’s best man or niece’s sorority sister. You never know when the tables will turn and you will become the next unemployed candidate. And make sure to keep an eye out for Joe. He could be waiting in the wings to make you look great!

Read the full article →

Fortune’s Stanley Bing: The Mad-As-Hell Flight Attendant

August 10, 2010

I’ve got to say that I’m of two minds on this whole crazed flight attendant thing. On the one hand, you’ve got to feel for the guy. He’s dealing every day with pretty horrible working conditions, chief among which is the pervasive sphincterosity of passengers these days. Not all passengers, mind you. But enough. Like, last week I was on a AA flight out of NYC, heading for LA, and believe you me it was very important to me that the flight take off as scheduled. I had business is what I’m saying. Given the extraordinarily fragile nature of takeoffs at Kennedy, we didn’t need some schmuck gumming up the works. But here was this butthead on the bulkhead complaining that there was something wrong with his seat. Did you know that a seat put out of service can cancel an entire flight? I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen them cancel a flight because the accordion door on a bathroom didn’t shut just right. And here was this bonehead willing to wreck the plans of 250 people because the seat didn’t meet his ass’s specifications. No, passengers blow. You’ve got the guys who can’t get off the BlackBerry, or the drunks who demand to be overserved, or the people who think their babies are cute even when they’re screaming their heads off… for… SIX… HOURS. So you know the guy from Pittsburgh who drove JetBlue’s Steven Slater completely around the bend was most probably a butthead from start to finish. Didn’t listen to instructions, first thing. If there’s one thing that makes a flight attendant crazy, it’s having his or her tiny bit of authority challenged, flaunted, ignored. Then he cursed at the flight attendant, in public. Moron. Then he took down his fat baggage, which reportedly hit the increasingly angry Slater on the head. As an aside, have you seen the bloated, engorged steamer trunks that some people think of as carry-on luggage these days? How many jerks had this 20 year veteran endured? How had his working conditions declined over the years? How many times had he seen even minimum standards of cordiality and humanity ignored? America is angier, ruder, stupider than it’s ever been, and airplanes, in addition to being inherently dangerous little metal tubes in the ether, are now essentially no more than flying buses, with all the elegance and comfort that entails. Every day, Mr. Slater had to witness the decline and fall of the empire. That takes its toll. Finally, he morphed into a Howard Beale of the runway and took the short chute out. Took a few beers with him, too. Hard not to like the guy. At the same time, I must say that the current batch of flight attendants has buried within its ranks some of the meanest and rudest people I’ve ever been trapped with. And I have to ask myself, just how officious, snotty and impolite was Mr. Slater to the Pittsburgh passenger BEFORE this incident occurred? Maybe not at all. Maybe that’s unjust. But let me tell you a little story. About two months ago, my wife and I were flying on JetBlue and a taut, nasty, bossy little gate agent decided to try to cram a big piece of luggage in the already-full compartment about our heads. He crammed it and jammed it and mashed it and crashed it and then he hauled our perfectly-ensconsed stuff out of its space in a most enraged fashion, hitting my wife on the head with her own luggage, at which point she asked for his name. He then blew up at her and threatened to take us both off the plane. He was subsequently calmed down by several of his associates and left the aircraft in a huff. This was about a week after I was on a flight on another airline where a very starchy flight attendant spread snark across a whole continent down an entire row of terrified passengers. She was wearing a button that said, “I DON’T CARE WHAT YOUR NAME IS, EITHER.” So when I hear about a flight attendant throwing a hissy fit… well, I just don’t know. My sympathies naturally gravitate to the guy who’s telling management to Take This Job and Shove It. On the other hand, who wants to be imprisoned at 35,000 feet with a demented, resentful burn-out?

Read the full article →

Fortune’s Stanley Bing: The Mad-As-Hell Flight Attendant

August 10, 2010

I’ve got to say that I’m of two minds on this whole crazed flight attendant thing. On the one hand, you’ve got to feel for the guy. He’s dealing every day with pretty horrible working conditions, chief among which is the pervasive sphincterosity of passengers these days. Not all passengers, mind you. But enough. Like, last week I was on a AA flight out of NYC, heading for LA, and believe you me it was very important to me that the flight take off as scheduled. I had business is what I’m saying. Given the extraordinarily fragile nature of takeoffs at Kennedy, we didn’t need some schmuck gumming up the works. But here was this butthead on the bulkhead complaining that there was something wrong with his seat. Did you know that a seat put out of service can cancel an entire flight? I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen them cancel a flight because the accordion door on a bathroom didn’t shut just right. And here was this bonehead willing to wreck the plans of 250 people because the seat didn’t meet his ass’s specifications. No, passengers blow. You’ve got the guys who can’t get off the BlackBerry, or the drunks who demand to be overserved, or the people who think their babies are cute even when they’re screaming their heads off… for… SIX… HOURS. So you know the guy from Pittsburgh who drove JetBlue’s Steven Slater completely around the bend was most probably a butthead from start to finish. Didn’t listen to instructions, first thing. If there’s one thing that makes a flight attendant crazy, it’s having his or her tiny bit of authority challenged, flaunted, ignored. Then he cursed at the flight attendant, in public. Moron. Then he took down his fat baggage, which reportedly hit the increasingly angry Slater on the head. As an aside, have you seen the bloated, engorged steamer trunks that some people think of as carry-on luggage these days? How many jerks had this 20 year veteran endured? How had his working conditions declined over the years? How many times had he seen even minimum standards of cordiality and humanity ignored? America is angier, ruder, stupider than it’s ever been, and airplanes, in addition to being inherently dangerous little metal tubes in the ether, are now essentially no more than flying buses, with all the elegance and comfort that entails. Every day, Mr. Slater had to witness the decline and fall of the empire. That takes its toll. Finally, he morphed into a Howard Beale of the runway and took the short chute out. Took a few beers with him, too. Hard not to like the guy. At the same time, I must say that the current batch of flight attendants has buried within its ranks some of the meanest and rudest people I’ve ever been trapped with. And I have to ask myself, just how officious, snotty and impolite was Mr. Slater to the Pittsburgh passenger BEFORE this incident occurred? Maybe not at all. Maybe that’s unjust. But let me tell you a little story. About two months ago, my wife and I were flying on JetBlue and a taut, nasty, bossy little gate agent decided to try to cram a big piece of luggage in the already-full compartment about our heads. He crammed it and jammed it and mashed it and crashed it and then he hauled our perfectly-ensconsed stuff out of its space in a most enraged fashion, hitting my wife on the head with her own luggage, at which point she asked for his name. He then blew up at her and threatened to take us both off the plane. He was subsequently calmed down by several of his associates and left the aircraft in a huff. This was about a week after I was on a flight on another airline where a very starchy flight attendant spread snark across a whole continent down an entire row of terrified passengers. She was wearing a button that said, “I DON’T CARE WHAT YOUR NAME IS, EITHER.” So when I hear about a flight attendant throwing a hissy fit… well, I just don’t know. My sympathies naturally gravitate to the guy who’s telling management to Take This Job and Shove It. On the other hand, who wants to be imprisoned at 35,000 feet with a demented, resentful burn-out?

Read the full article →

Mark Miller: What Makes for a Successful Midlife Career Transition?

August 6, 2010

Second verse: not the same as the first. Journalist Kerry Hannon remixed that old pop hit in the column she wrote for U.S. News and World Report , “Second Acts.” A specialist in careers, retirement and personal finance, Hannon has traveled the country interviewing people who’ve made successful career transitions at midlife — often into very colorful and happy new lives. Now, Hannon has crafted her research on career transition into an important new book, What’s Next: Follow Your Passion and Find Your Dream Job (Chronicle Books, 2010). It’s an indispensable guide to anyone hoping to pull off a midlife reinvention, and an excellent companion to another key book on this subject, Marc Freedman’s, Encore: Finding Work that Matters in the Second Half of Life (Public Affairs, 2008). Hannon tells the stories of 16 career-switchers who’ve turned dream careers into reality. They include a cop who became a Nashville music agent, an East Coast TV producer who moved to the Pacific Northwest to launch his own winery and a former corporate executive who now runs Rhode Island’s largest non-profit serving the homeless. Hannon also includes a useful Q&A with each career switcher, probing what motivated them to change and the lessons they learned along the way. She also asks her subjects to offer their advice to others considering a major career leap. I talked with Hannon about the book recently; here’s an edited Q&A. Q: What motivates people to change careers at midlife? A: Almost everyone I spoke to was spurred to make a change by a crisis that reminded them how fleeting life can be. For many, it was 9/11. For others, it was the death of someone close to them that made them stop and pause. But the real success stories were folks who had planned — they didn’t act impulsively. Q: What are some of the common elements you found among all these folks? A: The most important thing that struck me is that these people were all supremely confident in what they were doing. They never second-guessed themselves, even when things got difficult. They always had a clear sense that they were doing the right thing. They are all working longer hours than before but it doesn’t seem to matter to them. Q: What kind of preparation are people doing before they make a major career change? A: Most did a lot of research on whatever field they wanted to move into. Many did volunteer work to get a foot in the door. Tim Sheerer, who left a six-figure Wall Street career to open his own Italian restaurant, started out by volunteering in the kitchen of a restaurant to see if it really was for him. I think volunteering is a really important way to test the waters. Steve Brooks wanted to get out of the TV news business and start his own winery. So he moved to the Pacific Northwest and volunteered at harvest time for winemakers. Q: Is money a motivator for midlife career changers? A: Almost never. Even for people who needed the income, career change is about doing something they love and that can have an impact on their lives and others. These are people who want to give back — the reward isn’t financial. But the people who make successful career switches did take the time to get their finances in order. Income never comes in as quickly or at the level that you expect, so you need to plan in some time for some failure. Cliff Stevenson went from being a mortgage banker to teaching social studies — and that kind of move isn’t unusual. He took a huge pay cut, but first he sat down with his wife and got his family on board. They downsized their home and took the time to see where they could cut back. Q: So, are these transitions only for people of means, and who are in control of their finances? A: When I started this book, I was looking at disenchanted baby boomers who were ready to do something different. As time went on, it turned to include people whose jobs no longer existed and needed to reinvent themselves. The lessons here apply to anyone. But people who have a severance package or a partner to provide financial ballast certainly have an easier time doing this. Read an excerpt from What’s Next: Follow Your Passion and Find Your Dream Job .

Read the full article →

Mark Miller: What Makes for a Successful Midlife Career Transition?

August 6, 2010

Second verse: not the same as the first. Journalist Kerry Hannon remixed that old pop hit in the column she wrote for U.S. News and World Report , “Second Acts.” A specialist in careers, retirement and personal finance, Hannon has traveled the country interviewing people who’ve made successful career transitions at midlife — often into very colorful and happy new lives. Now, Hannon has crafted her research on career transition into an important new book, What’s Next: Follow Your Passion and Find Your Dream Job (Chronicle Books, 2010). It’s an indispensable guide to anyone hoping to pull off a midlife reinvention, and an excellent companion to another key book on this subject, Marc Freedman’s, Encore: Finding Work that Matters in the Second Half of Life (Public Affairs, 2008). Hannon tells the stories of 16 career-switchers who’ve turned dream careers into reality. They include a cop who became a Nashville music agent, an East Coast TV producer who moved to the Pacific Northwest to launch his own winery and a former corporate executive who now runs Rhode Island’s largest non-profit serving the homeless. Hannon also includes a useful Q&A with each career switcher, probing what motivated them to change and the lessons they learned along the way. She also asks her subjects to offer their advice to others considering a major career leap. I talked with Hannon about the book recently; here’s an edited Q&A. Q: What motivates people to change careers at midlife? A: Almost everyone I spoke to was spurred to make a change by a crisis that reminded them how fleeting life can be. For many, it was 9/11. For others, it was the death of someone close to them that made them stop and pause. But the real success stories were folks who had planned — they didn’t act impulsively. Q: What are some of the common elements you found among all these folks? A: The most important thing that struck me is that these people were all supremely confident in what they were doing. They never second-guessed themselves, even when things got difficult. They always had a clear sense that they were doing the right thing. They are all working longer hours than before but it doesn’t seem to matter to them. Q: What kind of preparation are people doing before they make a major career change? A: Most did a lot of research on whatever field they wanted to move into. Many did volunteer work to get a foot in the door. Tim Sheerer, who left a six-figure Wall Street career to open his own Italian restaurant, started out by volunteering in the kitchen of a restaurant to see if it really was for him. I think volunteering is a really important way to test the waters. Steve Brooks wanted to get out of the TV news business and start his own winery. So he moved to the Pacific Northwest and volunteered at harvest time for winemakers. Q: Is money a motivator for midlife career changers? A: Almost never. Even for people who needed the income, career change is about doing something they love and that can have an impact on their lives and others. These are people who want to give back — the reward isn’t financial. But the people who make successful career switches did take the time to get their finances in order. Income never comes in as quickly or at the level that you expect, so you need to plan in some time for some failure. Cliff Stevenson went from being a mortgage banker to teaching social studies — and that kind of move isn’t unusual. He took a huge pay cut, but first he sat down with his wife and got his family on board. They downsized their home and took the time to see where they could cut back. Q: So, are these transitions only for people of means, and who are in control of their finances? A: When I started this book, I was looking at disenchanted baby boomers who were ready to do something different. As time went on, it turned to include people whose jobs no longer existed and needed to reinvent themselves. The lessons here apply to anyone. But people who have a severance package or a partner to provide financial ballast certainly have an easier time doing this. Read an excerpt from What’s Next: Follow Your Passion and Find Your Dream Job .

Read the full article →

Koua Fong Lee, ‘Toyota Defense’ Driver Who Killed Three In Crash, Will Go Free

August 6, 2010

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Koua Fong Lee dreamed of life outside prison, of returning to the family he left when a jury didn’t believe he tried to stop his Toyota from speeding up a highway ramp and a judge sentenced him to eight years for the ensuing crash that killed three people. On Thursday, Lee fought back tears, suddenly a free man after the same judge ruled new evidence and a shoddy defense entitled him to a new trial. The county prosecutor agreed, and said she wouldn’t bring charges again. “It’s not a dream. It’s true,” Lee said, as his wife, Panghoua Moua, buried her head in his shoulder. “When we are asleep in the cell, sometimes I dream and I wake up in the little room, still in the little room. But now my dream come true.” Lee, who immigrated to the U.S. from a Thai refugee camp in 2004, was driving a Toyota Camry when it plowed at high speed into the back of an Oldsmobile as Lee exited a St. Paul freeway ramp in 2006. He insisted during his trial that he did everything he could to stop the car but couldn’t. Jurors weren’t convinced and Lee’s own attorney suggested his client might have accidentally stepped on the accelerator. But Lee sought a new trial this spring in the wake of Toyota’s widely publicized problems with sudden acceleration in some newer models. Even though his 1996 Camry never had been recalled, Lee was granted a hearing. Prosecutors opposed a new trial, arguing Lee hadn’t offered conclusive new evidence in the case. But after the judge’s ruling, County Attorney Susan Gaertner conceded Lee’s team had shown his trial attorney was “ineffective.” “I think it’s time to bring this very sad situation to a close,” Gaertner said. Lee and Moua have four children, ages 8, 5, 3 and 2, and Moua said her husband barely knows the youngest two because of his time in prison. Changing that was Lee’s first intention, he said. “It’s a long time, very long time, and they don’t know me. I want to know them, who I am, I am their daddy,” he said. During four days of testimony this week, Lee’s attorneys didn’t prove his car had a sudden acceleration problem. But they argued evidence backed up Lee’s account he was trying to brake. They also argued his defense attorney did a poor job. And they called a parade of witnesses who testified they had sudden-acceleration experiences in Toyotas similar to Lee’s. Ramsey County District Judge Joanne Smith – who presided over Lee’s original trial and had sentenced him to the maximum – said if that testimony from the other Toyota drivers had been introduced then, it would “more likely than not, or probably, or even almost certainly” have resulted in a different verdict for Lee. Smith also said Lee’s limited English was a factor in her conclusion, as well as the work of his defense attorney. “There were multiple errors and omissions by his attorney that necessitate this result,” Smith said. Lee’s release capped a dramatic day during which he earlier rejected prosecutors’ offer to set him free and vacate his sentence. But that offer had included several conditions, including a stayed remainder of his sentence that meant he could face prison for a new violation in the future. Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died in the 2006 accident. Adams’ 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down and died shortly after Lee was convicted. Two others were badly hurt. Bridgette Trice, Devyn Bolton’s mother, welcomed Thursday’s ruling. The victim’s families had supported Lee’s effort for a new trial, but Trice was crying outside the courthouse as she spoke to reporters. “I’m happy for him but I’m still sad for us, cause he’s going back to his but ours are never coming back to us,” Trice said. Lee said he wanted the victims’ families to know he didn’t intend to cause the accident. “I want them to know that I will pray for them and I also want to ask them to forgive me and to believe me,” he said.

Read the full article →

Andrew Ross Sorkin Pays More Than Asking Price For New Apartment

August 4, 2010

Hopefully Andrew Ross Sorkin did his research before buying his new apartment. The New York Times reporter recently paid $2.315 million for an apartment listed for $2.295 million! For those who would rather not do the math, that’s $20,000 more than the asking price. The 3-bedroom/3-bathroom co-op unit is on the Upper West Side, at 118 West 79th Street — a mere stone’s throw from both Central Park, and Zabar’s! Sorkin and his wife can look forward to high ceilings, marble floors, granite countertops, and a 24-hour elevatorman. Take a look at the apartment below:

Read the full article →