May 9, 2024

Archives for September 2012

DealBook: British Regulator Unveils Libor Overhaul

Martin Wheatley, Managing Director of the FSA, discusses changes to Libor.Carl Court/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMartin Wheatley, managing director of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, said London’s reputation as a global center for financial services had been tarnished by the Libor scandal.

LONDON – A leading British regulator officially unveiled the government’s plan to overhaul the rate at the center of the manipulation scandal, but conceded that problems could still persist.

On Friday, Martin Wheatley, the managing director of the Britain’s Financial Services Authority, the British regulator, acknowledged that regulators should have stepped in sooner to fix the problems with the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. He also confirmed the broad strokes of the proposal, which came after a three-month review.
British authorities, which will provide more oversight, want to make it a criminal offense to alter the rate for financial gain. They also plan to implement new auditing systems to ensure traders cannot unfairly profit from small changes to Libor.

“There’s always a possibility for collusion,” Mr. Wheatley told an audience at Mansion House, the 260-year-old home to the lord mayor of London that is adorned with gilded statues and chandeliers. “But under the new regulatory structure, people would be taking a high risk.”

The proposed changes come amid an investigation into potential rate-rigging at big global banks like HSBC, UBS and JPMorgan Chase. In June, the British bank Barclays agreed to pay $450 million to settle allegations that some of its traders tried to manipulate Libor for financial gain. The firm was also accused of understating its rates submissions to make the bank appear healthier during the financial crisis.

Mr. Wheatley, who will lead the Financial Conduct Authority, a new British regulator that will become part of the Bank of England next year, said London’s reputation as a global center for financial services had been tarnished by the recent scandal.

In response, the country’s authorities have stripped the British Bankers’ Association, the London-based trade body that currently oversees Libor, from its powers to control the rate. A new administrator will be appointed over the next 12 months.

Organizations will be able to start pitching for the position next week. The data providers Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which collects the daily Libor submissions on behalf of the British Bankers’ Association, as well as NYSE Euronext have expressed interest in taking on the role. Users of Libor will still pay for the financial information, Mr. Wheatley said on Friday.

Regulators are aiming to improve the accuracy and reliability of Libor, which measures the rate at which banks lend to each other. To do so, they want banks to base the rate submission on actual market transactions whenever possible.

As part of that effort, authorities are planning to focus on fewer markets that are the most liquid. Five of the current 10 currencies, including the Swedish krona and Canadian dollar, will be removed over the next 12 months. The number of rates also will be reduced to 20, from 150.

British regulators will take a more hands-on approach with the rate. They plan to audit banks’ daily Libor submissions to avoid rate manipulation.

Even so, Libor will not be immune to manipulation. Because of limited interbank lending activity, Mr. Wheatley said, sometimes the rates would have to be based on a level of judgment from banks on what interest rates they would be able to secure from other firms.

“There’s still a risk,” he said.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/british-regulators-unveil-overhaul-to-libor/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Sony Agrees to Acquire Stake in Olympus

TOKYO — Sony is set to become the biggest shareholder in Olympus with an investment of 50 billion yen, or $645 million, investment, the two companies announced Friday.

The deal could give struggling Sony a jump-start in the lucrative medical equipment business, while helping to bolster Olympus’s balance sheet following its $1.7 billion accounting scandal.

Sony and Olympus will form a joint venture to develop and manufacture endoscopes and other medical devices, the companies said in a statement. Olympus controls about 70 percent of the world’s market for medical endoscopes.

The two companies will also consider cooperating in digital cameras, they said.

Sony, struggling after four years of losses because of its slumping TV business, has been looking for new sources of revenue. It entered the medical device field last year by acquiring the American medical diagnostics firm Micronics for an undisclosed sum. Sony’s president, Kazuo Hirai, has said medical businesses could one day be a major profit driver.

Meanwhile, Olympus, which admitted last year to hiding losses for over a decade, is desperate to shore up its capital.

It replaced its entire board, restated five years of earnings and took a $1.3 billion write-down after acknowledging that it obscured what it said were past investment losses in inflated mergers and acquisition payments.

The deal announced on Friday calls for Sony to take a 11.5 percent stake in Olympus by buying new Olympus shares for 1,454 yen a share — a 4 percent discount to Friday’s closing price.

The two companies will set up a joint company by the end of the year, of which Sony will hold 51 percent and Olympus will hold 49 percent, the companies said. Sony will also select a director to serve on Olympus’s board.

In statements, Hiroyuki Sasa, the Olympus president, and Mr. Hirai of Sony both stressed that the deal would bring together Sony’s technological edge in digital imaging with Olympus’s already-dominant position in the medical field.

‘‘By accepting an investment from Sony, we will not only strengthen our financial base, but also combine our strengths and develop the kind of medical devices that we may not have been able to develop on our own,‘‘ Mr. Sasa said.

Sony will position the medical field ‘‘as one of Sony’s future core businesses,’’ Mr. Hirai said.

Olympus shares gained 1.7 percent to 1,520 yen in Tokyo on Friday, after the Nikkei business daily carried a report on the deal in its morning edition. Shares in the company, which lost nine-tenths of their value after the scandal erupted last October, have recovered to almost half their pre-scandal levels.

Shares in Sony fell 1.1 percent to 919 yen. Its shares have already slumped 34 percent this year.

On Tuesday, Standard Poor’s cut Sony’s long-term debt rating a notch to BBB, the second-lowest investment grade, and warned of further downgrades unless Sony turns its business around.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/sony-agrees-to-acquire-stake-in-olympus/?partner=rss&emc=rss

BUSINESS: Manufacturing Music

September 28, 2012

Article source: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/28/business/100000001812991/manufacturing-music.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss Blog: How a Diner Gets the Most Out of Social Media

On Social Media

Generating revenue along with the buzz.

One of Squeeze In's Foursquare mayors, Nikki McCarroll, with son, Angus.Tourine Johnstone One of Squeeze In’s Foursquare mayors, Nikki McCarroll, with son, Angus.

Squeeze In is a modest little breakfast-and-lunch diner with four locations in the greater Reno, Nev. area. The restaurants are open seven days a week, 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. While online commenters rave about the food, I can’t get over how creatively this little chain has managed its social media. It has a Web site and a custom mobile site. It promotes the business through Foursquare, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and Instagram.

“We want to reach our guests where they are: on their phones, in their homes, on their laptops or desktops, on their weekends and at their charitable events,” said Misty Young, 50, the company president. “We want to be in their heads when they think breakfast or lunch.”

The diner has a custom smartphone app. In 2010, the company invested $2,500 in building the app for iPhone, Android and BlackBerry phones. It took four months to develop and to date, 2,795 people have downloaded it. If you browse the menu on the way over, you will find app-only deals to show your server once you’re seated. The deals have been redeemed nearly 2,000 times.

Servers have been trained to offer to take a group picture if they see a smartphone on the table. This, of course, is a terrific way to generate Instagram and Facebook photos that are posted directly by guests and then linked to by Squeeze In in its Flickr photo stream (the app also has a built-in tip calculator). Everything that’s done in social media is quantified. “Our Foursquare newbie offer for first time check-ins has been unlocked 1,151 times,” said Ms. Young. “The mayor special has been unlocked 140 times. People are actively using this stuff.”

The restaurant has 6,800 “likes” on Facebook, more than 42,000 views of its YouTube videos, more than 1,000 followers on Twitter and more than 52,000 members of its Egghead Breakfast Club, a guest loyalty program that uses a customized magnetic swipe card system. The transaction data taken from the cards drive marketing and sales decisions, promotions and initiatives. The program also helps lead members to social media review sites, and the chain responds to every review posted on Yelp. Not surprisingly, if you type the restaurant’s name into a Google search, you will find it holding the top three positions. And it never pays for online advertising.

The people who work at Squeeze In seem to have a lot of fun. “For example, we created an energetic parody video just for a good time and to feature our cool staff,” said Ms. Young. “It cost us a whopping $600 to produce.” The parody video is the staff’s take on the popular Black Eyed Peas song “Imma Be.” The Squeeze In version is called “Omma Lette.” It has been viewed more than 2,500 times.

The online presence helped the chain land a spot on the Food Network’s “Throwdown With Bobby Flay.” When Ms. Young asked a producer how the network had found Squeeze In, the producer responded, “We troll the Web, and we look for and listen to what people are saying.” The Food Network exposure immediately increased revenue 25 percent, Ms. Young said, and encouraged the company to speed up its expansion plans. “It’s called social for a reason,” she said. “We’ve multiplied our Twitter presence by 450 percent in a year. We’ve run contests, promoted specials, posted photos and videos, engaged. We’ve been social to keep growing.”

Squeeze In has 270 nonfiltered reviews on Yelp, and one of the owners of the restaurant has responded to every review. “Being responsive, social, relevant and listening has been a key to our social success,” said Ms. Young, who runs the business along with her husband, her daughter and her son-in-law, all of whom own a stake in the company. When the reigning mayor of FourSquare stops by, she is treated to a complimentary mimosa (yes, Squeeze In serves liquor at 8 a.m. to people who order bloody marys or champagne with their omelettes). Customers can also get free breakfasts on their birthdays and free champagne on their anniversaries.

The chain also uses social media in its internal operations. A private Facebook group, for example, helps communications with the 96 employees and has improved camaraderie, job satisfaction and job retention. And it uses multiple public Facebook pages to engage the surrounding communities. Each of the four locations has its own page to allow for check-ins and special offers, but they also offer community information — if there’s a cat lost, they post about it; if there’s a high school production or a breakfast event, they’ll support it and post it on their fan page.

This kind of social media effort does not come free. Squeeze In’s social media efforts are handled by three people: Ms. Young, who is really the face of the company in social media; her daughter, Shila Morris; and Eva Litson, a full-time communications manager. Ms. Young estimates that she spends an hour a day on social media, mostly in 15-minute bursts, monitoring the brand across all social media accounts and engaging with customers. Ms. Morris handles day-to-day operations and monitors Yelp. Ms. Litson handles external marketing efforts, including managing the Web site, the monthly newsletter and e-mail blasts, and she reviews the metrics of all the company’s social media efforts.

Of course, none of this would matter if people didn’t like the food. “All our communications tactics are lame and ineffective if we can’t back it up at the table,” said Ms. Young.

Melinda Emerson is founder and chief executive of Quintessence Multimedia, a social media strategy and content development firm. You can follow her on Twitter.

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/how-a-las-vegas-diner-gets-the-most-out-of-social-media/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Wheels: For Marchionne and Winterkorn, a Parisian Showdown Is Averted

A dispute at the highest levels of the principal lobbying group for Europe’s automotive industry was resolved with a handshake on Friday, as Sergio Marchionne, the chief executive of Fiat and Chrysler, met with Martin Winterkorn, chief executive of Volkswagen, on the convention floor at the Paris motor show.

Sergio Marchionne, on Thursday in Paris.Corentin Fohlen for The International Herald Tribune Sergio Marchionne, on Thursday in Paris.

Mr. Marchionne, the head of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, was criticized by Volkswagen executives for comments made to The New York Times in July, in which the Fiat chief took issue with deep discounts offered by the German brand in Europe. Mr. Marchionne and other executives accused VW of creating a market climate in which frenzied price-cutting jeopardized margins. The Fiat chief characterized the environment as a “bloodbath.”

Martin Winterkorn, on Wednesday at the preview event for the VW Group.Eric Piermont/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Martin Winterkorn, on Wednesday at the preview event for the VW Group.

Fiat, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Ford Motor and the Opel and Vauxhall divisions of General Motors project significant losses in Europe for the year as they try to address overcapacity at their plants.

In July, Volkswagen said it was prepared to leave the lobbying group, saying Mr. Marchionne was not qualified to lead it. As Automotive News reported on Thursday, Mr. Marchionne issued a challenge to VW that sounded as if it was lifted from Hopalong Cassidy:

“If Volkswagen, through its chief executive, thinks that it needs to do something, tell them to show up tomorrow morning at 7 o’clock at our stand,” Mr. Marchionne told reporters.

Automotive News and Bloomberg reported that on Friday morning in Paris, having adjourned from a meeting of the lobbying group held at the Fiat stand, the two executives met and shook hands, saying the dispute was resolved.

“We’ve cleared it,” Mr. Marchionne said of the spat in a video interview after he and Mr. Winterkorn acknowledged they remained “good friends.”

Article source: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/for-marchionne-and-winterkorn-a-parisian-showdown-is-averted/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bits Blog: Tim Cook Apologizes for Apple’s Maps

Timothy D. Cook, Apple's chief executive, at the introduction of the iPhone 5.Eric Risberg/Associated Press Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, at the introduction of the iPhone 5.

After more than a week of complaints and jokes about Apple’s new mapping service, the company’s chief executive apologized to customers on Friday for the frustration it has caused.

In a letter posted on Apple’s Web site, Timothy D. Cook said he was “extremely sorry” for the anguish caused when the company replaced Google’s maps with its own, acknowledging that the company’s new Maps app did not live up to its standards.

He said that 100 million people were already using the maps, and that the more who used it, the better the service would get. In the meantime, while Apple fixes its maps, he suggested that customers try alternatives available for download in the App Store or on the Web — including Google’s.

In previous versions of iOS, Apple’s mobile operating system, the Maps app was made by Apple and powered by Google’s maps service. But Google, with its Android software for phones, has come to be more of a competitor to Apple than a partner. In iOS 6, the latest version released last week, Apple replaced the old app with a new version that uses mapping data collected or purchased by Apple itself.

Early reactions to Apple’s new maps app were mixed: Some customers said they enjoyed the visuals and new features in the software, but many complained about issues like location searches failing or the maps bringing up incorrect results.

“This is just simply an area where companies like Google and Nokia have had a tremendous head start,” said Ross Rubin, a principal analyst with Reticle Research. “Clearly Apple did not prepare from day one to build its own mapping application.”

Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chairman, told reporters in Tokyo this week that Apple should have stuck with Google’s maps. Google is seeking to finish a new maps app for Apple’s iOS devices by the end of the year, according to people involved with the effort, who declined to be named because of the nature of their work.

Though Apple has come under criticism for product problems in the past, apologies from the company are rare. When some customers discovered the iPhone 4’s reception could be weakened if the phone was held a certain way, Steve Jobs held a press conference and said he would offer free cases to affected customers, avoiding an explicit apology.

Earlier, when Apple customers complained about the price of the first iPhone dropping so quickly after its introduction, Mr. Jobs penned an open letter with an apology and offered a $100 store credit for those who bought the iPhone for the higher price.

Mr. Cook’s full letter follows:

To our customers,

At Apple, we strive to make world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers. With the launch of our new Maps last week, we fell short on this commitment. We are extremely sorry for the frustration this has caused our customers and we are doing everything we can to make Maps better.

We launched Maps initially with the first version of iOS. As time progressed, we wanted to provide our customers with even better Maps including features such as turn-by-turn directions, voice integration, Flyover and vector-based maps. In order to do this, we had to create a new version of Maps from the ground up.

There are already more than 100 million iOS devices using the new Apple Maps, with more and more joining us every day. In just over a week, iOS users with the new Maps have already searched for nearly half a billion locations. The more our customers use our Maps the better it will get and we greatly appreciate all of the feedback we have received from you.

While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app.

Everything we do at Apple is aimed at making our products the best in the world. We know that you expect that from us, and we will keep working non-stop until Maps lives up to the same incredibly high standard.

Tim Cook

Apple’s CEO

Article source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/tim-cook-maps/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Bank of America to Pay $2.43 Billion to Settle Suit Over Merrill Deal

11:23 a.m. | Updated
Seeking to unload one of its heaviest burdens from the financial crisis, Bank of America announced on Friday that it would pay $2.43 billion to settle litigation that had accused the bank of deceiving investors in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

The legal woes from that deal and the bank’s acquisition of the mortgage lender Countrywide Financial earlier in the financial crisis have dogged Bank of America as it tries to turn itself around.

For a federal securities class action, the size of the Merrill settlement is surpassed only by the those of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and Cendant settlements, according to Joseph Grundfest, a professor specializing in securities litigation at Stanford University Law School.

Bank of America said that the settlement would hurt its results for the quarter, with it and other legal expenses costing it $1.6 billion. It also agreed to adopt a “say on pay” shareholder vote, an independent compensation committee of the board and policies for committees focused on acquisitions, among other corporate governance changes.

Bank of America announced a deal to buy Merrill Lynch for $50 billion in September 2008 as Lehman Brothers was preparing to file for bankruptcy. At the time, the two firms crowed about creating a financial giant unrivaled “in its breadth of financial services and global reach.” Bank of America executives emphasized Merrill’s “great global franchise” and its extensive network of financial advisers. The company said the deal would bolster earnings by 2010.

But by the time the deal closed in January 2009, Merrill Lynch’s health had deteriorated precipitously. The class action accused Bank of America of providing false and misleading statements that disguised huge losses at the Wall Street firm before shareholder votes to approve the merger.

Bank of America denied the allegations, but said it agreed to settle in order to put the cost litigation behind it. Under the proposed settlement, Bank of America has also agreed to beef up its corporate governance policies.

Brian T. Moynihan, chief of Bank of America.Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg NewsBrian T. Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America.

“Resolving this litigation removes uncertainty and risk and is in the best interests of our shareholders,” Brian T. Moynihan, the bank’s chief executive, said in a statement. “As we work to put these long-standing issues behind us, our primary focus is on the future and serving our customers and clients.”

During the early years of the financial crisis, Bank of America appeared to be in better shape than its rivals because it had more ample coffers to acquire struggling lenders. Bank of America swooped in to buy two troubled firms. In 2008, Bank of America bought Countrywide Financial, the subprime mortgage lender. Later that year, Bank of America agreed to purchase Merrill.

But both deals have haunted the bank.

Since it acquired teetering Countrywide in 2008 just as the housing market was cratering, the deal has cost Bank of America more than $40 billion in losses on real-estate, legal costs and settlements, according to several people close to the bank. Within the bank, the purchase of the mortgage lender, has unleashed turmoil and regret. Mr. Moynihan, Bank of America’s chief executive, has publicly expressed regret, specifically about the timing of Countrywide’s purchase.

More than the timing, though, Bank of America has had to grapple with loans made by Countrywide. Founded 43 years ago, Countrywide promoted the virtues of owning a home for every American and made mortgages which have turned out to be some of the most troubled. The purchase of the lender effectively saddled Bank of America with hundreds of thousands of homeowners struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments.

Across the United States, Bank of America has had to spend billions of dollars to defend lawsuits related to Countrywide’s mortgage business. In the second quarter of 2011, for example, the bank reported an $8.8 billion loss, mainly related to a settlement with mortgage investors.

Earlier this year, Bank of America and four other banks agreed to a $26 billion settlement related to their foreclosure practices. That deal evolved from an investigation into the mortgage-servicing practices by all the 50 state attorneys general begun 2010 amid mounting fury over revelations that banks evicted homeowners from their homes with false or incomplete documentation.

Alone, the acquisition of Countrywide would have been enough to hobble growth at Bank of America, but coupled with the problematic purchase of Merrill Lynch, it has nearly crippled the institution. Mr. Moynihan has had to shutter bank branches, sell over billions in assets and slash tens of thousands of employees.

The marriage with Merrill began amid the financial turmoil of 2008. John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill, privately sought out Ken Lewis, the head of Bank of America, during a break in a crisis meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in lower Manhattan. Mr. Thain had realized that his firm was in critical condition and might not survive past the weekend. It was a shotgun wedding, and the two executives announced Sunday night that their firms were merging.

Bebeto Matthews/Associated PressKen Lewis, former chief executive of Bank of America

The union was rocky from the start. While the deal gave Merrill a much-needed lifeline, the brokerage firm was still hemorrhaging money. Internal calculations showed Merrill, which was saddled with billions of dollars in souring mortgage assets, had a staggering pretax loss of more than $10 billion for October and November, and December was looking even worse.

At the same time, Bank of America and Merrill were pushing forward to close the deal by January 2009. On Dec. 5, at separate meetings in Charlotte, N.C., and New York, shareholders of each company voted to approve the deal. Just days before the shareholder meetings, bank executive expected Merrill to have a fourth-quarter loss of at least $16 billion, according to the shareholder lawsuit. But there was no public disclosure of that internal forecast.

In court documents, lawyers for Mr. Lewis have said that the executive was aware of the mounting losses heading into the shareholder meetings, but following discussions with lawyers he concluded that an interim disclosure was not necessary because the key regulatory filing in support of the merger didn’t contain projections on Merrill’s fourth-quarter results.

“The losses, though large, were not out of line with losses Merrill had experienced in prior quarters; and investors were well aware that banks were sustaining significant losses as the economy deteriorated,” according to a court filing filed by his lawyers in June 2013.

As the losses inside Merrill continued to build, some executives inside Bank of America considered abandoning the deal altogether. But regulators urged executives at Bank of America to continue, arguing that any reneged deal would surely cause further turmoil in the already roiling financial system. Instead, Bank of America received a fresh injection of capital to buffer against the Merrill losses.

On Jan. 16, weeks after the deal had closed, the bailout was announced along with Merrill’s fourth-quarter net loss of $15.31 billion. Shareholders, unaware of the severity of the losses in late 2008, were furious.

Neither Mr. Thain nor Mr. Lewis survived long after debacle. A week after the bailout was announced, Mr. Lewis flew to New York from Charlotte to see Mr. Thain, telling him the board blamed him for the losses. Mr. Thain has previously said he viewed this meeting as a firing.

In April 2009, Bank of America shareholders stripped Mr. Lewis of the title of chairman. By this time, lawsuits related to the merger were mounting and the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating. Mr. Lewis announced his retirement from the bank a month later.

The bank later paid $150 million to settle an S.E.C. lawsuit that alleged the bank did not tell its shareholders about big bonus payments Merrill had approved before the merger clolsed.

Friday’s settlement won’t be the only black mark on the bank’s financials this quarter. The bank also said that profit would be hurt by a $1.9 billion adjustment related to the value of its debt. It also faces an $800 million charge related to a income tax expense.

In all, Bank of America said earnings would be cut by 28 cents a share. The company is set to report earnings on Oct. 17.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/bank-of-america-to-pay-2-43-billion-to-settle-class-action-over-merrill-deal/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Today’s Economist: Uwe E. Reinhardt: Redistribution of Wealth in America

DESCRIPTION

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton.

A recent article in The Washington Post and an audio clip accompanying it on the Web featured an excerpt from a speech in 1998 by Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, at Loyola University Chicago.

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

In that speech he remarked, “I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

The article then quotes Mitt Romney: “I know there are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we’ll all be better off. It’s known as redistribution. It’s never been a characteristic of America.”

Really?

Aside from hard-core libertarians, who view the sanctity of justly begotten private property as the overarching social value and any form of coerced redistribution as unjust, how many Americans on the left and right of the political spectrum would disagree with Mr. Obama’s very general and cautiously phrased statement?

In fact, I wonder whether even Governor Romney actually disagrees with that general statement, aside from some dispute over “the certain level” at which redistribution takes place. After all, he has promised elderly voters to protect the highly redistributive Medicare program, which would remain highly redistributive, or become more so, under proposals by his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, for restructuring Medicare.

The fact is that redistributive government policy — mainly through benefits-in-kind programs, agricultural policy and the like — has been very much a characteristic of American life, just as it has been in every economically developed nation, albeit at different levels.

Start at the local level. Through property taxes, local governments all over the United States routinely take from high-income Americans living in expensive houses to subsidize the education of children from lower-income families. It is the American way, based on the widespread belief that doing so will make society as a whole better off. Is there a significantly large constituency for abolishing this form of redistribution at the local level and instead letting every family fend for itself, with its own budget, in a private market for education?

The same can be said, at the local level, for fire and police protection. One could imagine a world in which every family cuts a deal with private contractors to provide fire and police protection — leaving poor neighborhoods to fend for themselves — but that is just not an American characteristic. Is there a sizable constituency in America for completely privatizing local fire and police protection?

At the state level, consider Medicaid. By design, Medicaid is purely redistributive. It takes from higher-income people at the state and federal levels and pays fully for the health care of low-income people. Is there a strong constituency for abolishing Medicaid and letting the poor, when they are ill, fend for themselves in the market for health care?

Or take public colleges and universities. Although tuition has increased in past years, these institutions are still heavily supported by the states and charge tuition much below the full cost of the education they impart.

At the federal level, Social Security and Medicare were deliberately structured by their designers to be in part redistributive. As Eugene Steuerle and Adam Carasso of the Urban Institute’s Retirement Project have reported, both programs redistribute from retirees who had been high-income earners in their work years to those who had been low-income earners.

Would elimination of this redistributive feature inherent in Social Security and especially in Medicare have much of a political constituency today? Would any politician dare propose openly — and I stress openly — that Medicare beneficiaries who had been high-income earners in their work years should have a health care experience superior to those who had low incomes in their work years? Would that proposal be a winner this year?

By the way their benefits and the financing of these benefits are structured, Social Security and Medicare also redistribute income from the current working population collectively to the currently retired population collectively. Is that fair?

In thinking about this issue, keep in mind that a young generation about to enter the workplace has, for a fifth to a quarter of a century, been the beneficiary of huge transfers of human and nonhuman capital. Overwhelmingly, they have taken from society and not contributed to it.

By human capital economists mean the education and training that foster in the young marketable skills that can be traded for cash at the workplace. Although, unlike students in many other countries, American students do contribute significantly to the financing of their human capital — at the college and postgraduate levels — the production of their human capital remains very heavily subsidized by the preceding generational cohorts. Charge the total value of that transfer to an intergenerational account.

Charge to it next the nonhuman capital transferred to the young. This includes the vast array of physical structures built and largely financed by preceding generations, transferred virtually free of charge to the younger generation for its use, along with the scientific knowledge and the blueprints for applied technology developed and financed by previous generations but available, again largely free of charge, as an economic platform for the younger generation.

I believe the designers of Social Security and Medicare were mindful of this vast redistribution of assets to the young when they embedded in these programs a social contract creating a reverse redistribution from the young to the old during the latter’s retirement years.

These designers seem also to have kept in mind that future generations benefit greatly from the secular increase in overall productivity in the economy. It can reasonably be assumed that future long-run growth in real gross domestic product per capita will be 1 to 2 percent a year. At only 1 percent, real G.D.P. per capita in 2050 will be about 46 percent larger than it is today. At 2 percent growth, it will be more than twice as large.

At issue between the two political camps in this election season, then, is not redistribution per se, which is as American as apple pie. Rather, at issue is the “certain level” to which that redistribution is to be pushed. An honest and thoughtful debate on that would certainly be useful at this time. It would be useful at any time.

To be respectful to voters, such a debate should proceed at a level concrete enough to allow voters — or at least researchers and news organizations — to estimate fairly precisely how different families would fare under the different visions of that “certain level.”

It is the minimum voters ought to expect from political candidates.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/redistribution-of-wealth-in-america/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Green Blog: A Bipartisan Vote Against European Air Fines

Green: Politics

Approved unanimously on Saturday before Congress adjourned for a fall campaign hiatus, the Senate bill drew relatively little attention. It was the “European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011,” the latest attempt to exempt American airlines from paying fees imposed by the European Union to cover the greenhouse gases their planes emit while flying to and from European airports.

The House passed a somewhat tougher bill last October. Because the bills have some differences, the final version will have to be sorted out later when Congress resumes work after the November elections.

The measure, which drew bipartisan sponsorship, is the latest salvo in the tug-of-war over whether American air carriers should pay what is essentially a carbon tax for flights to and from Europe under the European Emissions Trading System, which the aviation sector became a part of on Jan. 1. The regulatory framework had already applied to most other industries, including electricity providers and cement makers.

The Senate version of the bill, although more diplomatic than the House version, essentially gives the secretary of transportation the authority to tell airlines that they should not comply with Europe’s laws on emissions payments if he deems disobedience to be in the public interest.

The lawmakers argue that the American airlines should not pay the fines as a matter of national sovereignty, since some of the carbon dioxide emitted during the flights to and from Europe is emitted in United States or international airspace. Instead they favor a global approach to addressing fast-rising airline emissions, perhaps under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

That body has been working on a policy to address those emissions for several years now, and the European Union says it has been too slow to act. The international agency’s next major assembly does not convene until September of next year.

China and India have also objected to Europe’s new rules, even threatening in some cases to limit European airlines’ right to traverse their airspace in retaliation.

Annie Petsonk of the Environmental Defense Fund has an interesting post detailing the state of play on the issue.

Article source: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/a-bipartisan-vote-against-european-air-fines/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: British Authorities to Announce Changes in Libor Oversight

Martin Wheatley of the Financial Services Authority will outline plans to overhaul Libor on Friday.Simon Newman/ReutersMartin Wheatley of the Financial Services Authority will outline plans to overhaul Libor on Friday.

LONDON — British authorities are set to announce significant changes to the interest rate at the heart of a recent manipulation scandal as they aim to improve the accuracy and reliability of the benchmark.

On Friday, Martin Wheatley, the managing director of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, will outline plans to increase oversight of the rate-setting process, which underpins more than $350 trillion of financial products like mortgages and student loans.

As part of that effort, regulators are stripping the British banking group that currently oversees the interest rate — the London interbank offered rate, or Libor — of its power. The British government, in turn, will take a more hands-on role, including making rate manipulation a criminal offense.

The benchmark itself will also be retooled to address some of its inherent weaknesses. The goal is to base Libor, which measures the rate at which banks lend to each other, on actual market transactions, rather than estimates.

“The disturbing events we have uncovered in the manipulation of Libor have severely damaged our confidence and our trust,” Mr. Wheatley says in an advance text of the remarks he is to deliver in London. “It has torn the very fabric that our financial system is built on.”

Libor Explained

The scrutiny of Libor has intensified this year as authorities around the globe have ramped up their investigation into rate-rigging at more than a dozen big banks. Regulators are concerned that the institutions, including HSBC, Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase, submitted false rates.

In June, the British bank Barclays agreed to pay $450 million to settle charges that employees manipulated the rate to increase profits and make the institution appear healthier. Several top officials, including the chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr., resigned as a result of the scandal.

“Libor needs to reflect the values of the market,” said David E. Kovel, a partner at the law firm Kirby McInerney who is representing clients in a potential class-action suit related to Libor. “There’s no doubt the way that the rate is set up now makes it susceptible to abuse.”

The changes to Libor, some of which may require changes to British law, are expected to be introduced over the next 12 months.

The Financial Conduct Authority, a new British regulator that will become part of the Bank of England, the country’s central bank, will have primary responsibility for regulating Libor. Mr. Wheatley of the Financial Services Authority will lead the new agency when it is created next year.

“We can’t allow the unfettered latitude that banks previously enjoyed,” Mr. Wheatley’s advance text says. “Much greater rigor and transparency must be introduced.”

Under the proposal, regulators will pare back the number of currencies and maturities included in the Libor system. Critics have questioned the accuracy of Libor, given the lack of actual bank lending transactions, particularly in smaller currencies like the Swedish krona.

To improve the system, five of the current 10 currencies, including the Canadian dollar, will be phased out over the next year. Instead, Libor will focus mainly on major currencies like the United States dollar and the euro. In all, regulators are looking to cut the number of Libor rates to 20, from 150.

Individual banks’ rate submissions will be delayed by three months, rather than released in real time. This change means Libor will not readily reflect a bank’s health, potentially eliminating a motivation to submit false rates.

If a bank reports a high rate, it can be a sign of underlying troubles at the firm. During the financial crisis, Barclays submitted artificially low rates to deflect concerns about its financial position, according to regulatory documents.

Despite the changes, analysts worry that Libor may still be easy to manipulate. Since the financial crisis, banks have not been willing to take the risk of lending to other institutions. In their proposal, regulators indicate that the process will still rely on some “level of judgment” when hard data are not available.

“There are few markets where there’s a significant amount of liquidity,” said Darrell Duffie, a finance professor at Stanford University. “It makes sense to prune down the number of maturities.”

The British government will also replace the British Bankers’ Association, the London-based trade group, as Libor’s overseer. The organization, which established the benchmark rate in 1986, has come under mounting criticism for failing to catch the manipulation, which dated back to at least 2007, according to regulatory filings.

Under the proposed changes, a new administrator will be selected in the next 12 months. The future role of the data provider Thomson Reuters, which currently collects the daily rate submissions on behalf of the trade association, is uncertain.

“British Bankers’ Association clearly failed to properly oversee the Libor setting process and should take no further role in the administration and governance of Libor,” Mr. Wheatley’s advance text says.

He will also take aim at the excesses within the financial services sector that led to the manipulation of Libor, arguing that traders at many of the world’s largest banks were too focused on securing large bonuses. “Libor needs to get back to doing what it is supposed to do,” the text says, “rather than what unscrupulous traders and individuals in banks wanted it to do.”

Prepared Remarks From Martin Wheatley

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/british-authorities-to-announce-changes-in-libor-oversight/?partner=rss&emc=rss