April 25, 2024

You are here: Home / Archives for conn

Media Decoder Blog: At News Conference, Reporters Skip Past Gun Control and Face Instant Criticism

December 19, 2012 by Leave a Comment

President Obama, joined by the vice president, spoke with reporters on Wednesday afternoon.Evan Vucci/Associated Press President Obama, joined by the vice president, spoke with reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

3:34 p.m. | Updated The harshest judges of those in news media are often others in the news media, and, with the benefit of Twitter, that intrajournalistic watchdog role can be performed simultaneously with the journalism being criticized.

Case in point was the White House news conference on Wednesday afternoon, when President Obama made a forceful announcement in response to the massacre of children last week in Newtown, Conn. He said he was directing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to lead an effort “to come up with a set of concrete proposals” about dealing with gun violence that he would submit to Congress no later than January.

“We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun,” Mr. Obama said. “We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.”

His words, after five days of extensive news coverage and national debate, were intensely focused on gun violence. He addressed no other topics. Yet judging by the questions that followed his address, most of the members of the Washington press corps had other things on their minds.

“I’d like to ask you about the other serious issue consuming this town right now, the fiscal cliff,” was the first question, from The Associated Press’s correspondent, Ben Feller.

Mr. Obama answered. Then came the next question, again about the so-called “fiscal cliff”: “What is your next move?” Then: “You mentioned the $700,000, $800,000 — are you willing to move on income level?” And so on, for at least 15 minutes, before a question about gun violence was finally asked, by David Jackson of USA Today.

Media watchers on Twitter — mainly other members of the media and some whose job it is to watch it — quickly seized on the questions as a sign that the Washington press corps was out of step with the national agenda.

In a statement, Sally Buzbee, The A.P.’s Washington bureau chief, defended her reporter’s line of questioning.

“I think it was perfectly fine for A.P. White House correspondent Ben Feller to pose a question about the fiscal cliff,” Ms. Buzbee said. “The president had just spoken at length about gun control, but had not yet said a word about the other huge issue of the day affecting the nation, the fiscal cliff. We ask questions intended to ensure that big news is covered. We do this all this time. We aim to cover the uncovered ground.”

It wasn’t long, however, before the criticism spread throughout the wider Twitterverse and became a meme in itself. People proposed, tongue in cheek, other topics for questions in lieu of gun control under the hashtag #DCPressQuestions.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 19, 2012

An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified the reporter who was first to ask President Obama about gun violence. It was David Jackson of USA Today, not Jake Tapper of ABC News, who later also asked about gun violence.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/at-news-conference-reporters-skip-past-gun-control-and-face-instant-criticism/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Media Business Tagged With: , ,

Media Decoder Blog: David Letterman and Jimmy Kimmel Confront Newtown Shootings

December 18, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The school shooting in Newtown, Conn., made for an awkward subject for the usually topical comedy of late-night television, but two hosts did try to engage the subject Monday night, though not in any way that resembled their conventional approach to commenting on the news.

On CBS, David Letterman spent the entire second portion of his show rambling heartfelt musings on the pain of the event and the feelings of futility behind most attempts at solutions to such acts of violence.

On ABC, Jimmy Kimmel opened his monologue with an expression of sympathy for the town and the families of the victims, but he could barely get through his brief comments because his voice was so choked.

Mr. Letterman spent more time on the subject, over six minutes, expressing his own concerns as the parent of a young boy he occasionally brings to school. “What? Are we supposed to be worried about dropping our kids off at school now?” Mr. Letterman said. “I never worried about it before; I always thought, well, school is a good place where my son will be free of the idiot decisions made by his father.”

The comedian called the problem multifaceted. “It’s not about guns. It’s not about mental health necessarily.”

But he questioned the need for assault-type weapons with clips capable of carrying 30 rounds of ammunition. “Why do you need that?” he said. “You can have guns; 50 percent of households have guns, so we’re never going to say you can’t have guns.”

He ended by praising President Obama for his appearance at the prayer service in Newtown on Sunday night and his promise in the speech to try to contain gun violence. “He’s going take some action, so we feel better about that,” Mr. Letterman said. “In a small measure I feel better that he’s looking out for us in that regard.”

Mr. Kimmel also cited Mr. Obama’s remarks, saying, “The President said what needed to be said.”

But he only barely managed to get through a message to the families: “We’re thinking about you.”

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/for-late-night-hosts-a-struggle-to-confront-the-news/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Filed Under: Media Business Tagged With: , ,

Mortgages: Mortgages

November 6, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The research firm CoreLogic estimates that fraudulent residential mortgage originations will total $7.4 billion in 2011; the number is nearly 40 percent lower than the $12 billion in 2010, though the company attributes the decline to a drop in mortgage volume. (Mortgage fraud involves falsifying information to obtain a loan you otherwise might not have qualified for.)

Fraud-prevention measures — mostly required by federal regulators — look into where you work and live, how you use credit, and more.

The investigation process typically starts when you first apply for a mortgage and lenders verify your identity and Social Security number, said Jeffrey Lipes, a senior vice president of Family Choice Mortgage, in Rockville, Conn., and the president of the Connecticut Mortgage Bankers Association. Further inquiries — an effort to obtain a copy of a brokerage account, for instance — may require approval or assistance from the borrower, he said, but mostly “the consumer is not even aware that we’re doing it.”

Lenders also check to see if a borrower’s name shows up on the government terrorist lists, among other things, and they check employment and credit reports — then check them again, within three days of closing.

What are they looking out for? Here are four common triggers to increased scrutiny, and what borrowers can do about them.

A LARGE BANK DEPOSIT Lenders are required by federal regulators to confirm that funds in an account come from bona fide sources, like a gift from your grandmother for the down payment. “We source it,” Mr. Lipes said — “find out where it has come from.” What constitutes a large deposit? That is based partly on your income, he explained. If you earn $5,000 a month and deposit an extra $10,000 beyond your paycheck, that may be considered oversized. Of course, if you were just married and received a bounty of checks as gifts, you might want have your marriage license on hand as proof, when you are providing your bank account information.

YOUR ADDRESS If you are buying a primary home three hours from Manhattan yet list your employment with a Midtown company, your case may draw scrutiny, said Jason Auerbach, the divisional manager for the Manhattan office of First Choice Loan Services. He suggests getting a letter from an employer noting, for example, that you are authorized to work from home four days a week. Likewise, a couple with three children who are buying a one-bedroom apartment may be scrutinized about whether this will be their principal home. Lenders want to make sure you’re the owner-occupant, not buying as a rental or to flip the property.

NEW OR UNDISCLOSED DEBTS When you’re in the process of buying a home, avoid taking on other debt. “Sometimes borrowers don’t think buying a new car prior to closing a loan is a problem, but it is,” said Carolyn Mitchell, a senior vice president of Aklero Risk Analytics, which provides software for mortgage quality control. Buying a sofa or a furnace on credit could also slow or even scuttle your mortgage closing, depending on your situation, if it pushed your total debt levels beyond acceptable limits.

INCOME ISSUES If you disclose that you earn twice what the average person in your occupation earns, you may need to document that discrepancy. Or if you used to be an independent contractor and were recently hired as a full-time worker, that might raise concerns, Mr. Auerbach said. It is relatively easy, Mr. Lipes added, to invent false documents that inflate incomes, so lenders routinely check with the Internal Revenue Service and other sources.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1d089b2980d4002ef4f48ecb3699626b

Filed Under: Your Money Tagged With: , ,

Wealth Matters: Owning a Ranch Offers Returns Beyond the Financial

July 29, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Ranch life taps into the American desire for space, freedom and a connection with the land. Lately, owning a ranch, and selling the products raised on it, has emerged as an alternative investment class for those with deep pockets and a time horizon that stretches as far as the eye can see.

With prices for some prized ranches down as much as 30 percent and returns holding steady around 3 percent a year, ranch land is looking more attractive as an investment. But the returns are only part of the equation.

James E. Manley, founder of Atlantic-Pacific Capital, a boutique investment bank in Greenwich, Conn., said he never forgot his dream of being a rancher, even though he made his fortune in finance. “When I was a kid, probably 12 of the shows on TV were Westerns,” he said.

Mr. Manley said it took him 42 years, but after looking at 500 ranches, he found 6,000 acres in Montana in 2007 that fulfilled all his requirements, including having a river running through the property and not having poisonous snakes on the land. It is now the Ranch at Rock Creek, a high-end resort that is also a working cattle ranch.

“My son said, ‘I always thought it was just a dream,’ ” he said.

But as I found out, such dreams cost a lot of money to keep going. The land may be appreciating in value but the continuing costs are substantial. James H. Taylor, managing partner at Hall Hall, a broker that specializes in ranches, said some of the return had to come from being there. “It doesn’t make sense to own a ranch if you’re not going to come out and use it,” he said.

Ranches have always had a spot in a wealthy investor’s portfolio. Ted Turner may be known for founding CNN, but he also began buying ranches in 1987 and is now the second-largest individual landowner in North America, with two million acres spread across seven states, trailing only John Malone of Liberty Media. He sells the bison he raises, some to Ted’s Montana Grill, his restaurant chain.

As a pure investment, Mr. Taylor said, agricultural land has long offered steady returns, particularly as food prices have risen. According to the Farmland Index produced by the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries, prices rose 8.6 percent last year and 6.19 percent in 2009.

But he categorizes farmland as the least fun type of land to own. The types of land he considers more fun — working ranches and private or dude ranches — have lower returns.

“Most people consider this a safe place to park your money,” Mr. Taylor said. “The alternatives are savings accounts, triple-A rated securities and government bonds.”

Depending on how someone buys and sells a ranch, there are special tax treatments for what the Internal Revenue Service calls like-kind exchanges, which can defer capital gains taxes, said Brian R. Gallagher, a tax partner at the law firm Davis Gilbert. (The same rule, known as 1031, can apply to other real estate transactions where the properties are owned as investments.)

Warren Burke, a lifelong rancher, said he bought his first ranch, 600 acres in Pinedale, Wyo., with $1,500 down in 1971. He traded three ranches, including one in Montana now owned by Tom Brokaw, the retired NBC news anchor, until he acquired the 8,000-acre EA Ranch in Dubois, Wyo., in 1989 for $1.4 million. Last October, he sold it for $7 million and traded down to a 1,000-acre ranch. He did not pay tax until he downsized.

“My whole deal was I was never in it for the profit,” he said. “I was in it for the lifestyle, trying to make it work and enjoying the work.”

He added, “Cattle are a business; the ranch is an investment.”

That is something would-be buyers should remember. These vast tracts of land are gorgeous and can increase substantially in value, but they can be difficult to sell or even value.

Some of them have no comparable listings. Take the Darwin Ranch in Wyoming. It consists of 160 deeded acres in a valley but is surrounded by the Gros Ventre Wilderness area. While it is completely private, it is accessible only in the warm months, by road or air.

“We don’t know what it’s worth,” said Loring Woodman, who bought it for $70,000 in 1964 after graduating from Harvard and has run it since as a guest ranch.

He said the ranch was sold in August 2008 for $8.5 million, but the buyer pulled out when Lehman Brothers collapsed. The ranch is now set for auction in September, with a minimum price of $4.5 million.

While these profits are eye-popping, those who buy a ranch and think they can just call it a business may be in trouble. The I.R.S. has a hobby-loss rule to keep gentleman farmers from gaming the system.

“If you buy a farm, throw some cows on it and you’re a major executive in New York City, you have to be careful,” Mr. Gallagher, the tax lawyer, said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d4cd54b2f32d21ed03416ed2e1e1949b

Filed Under: Your Money Tagged With: , ,

Federal Reserve Will Require More Banks to Submit Capital Plans

June 11, 2011 by Leave a Comment

Bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in assets would be required to adopt “robust, forward-looking capital planning processes that account for their unique risks,” the Fed said in a statement.

Banks also would need to submit plans to raise dividends or repurchase stock as part of the Fed reviews, to begin early next year, the Fed said. Banks whose plans were rejected would have to get approval before distributing capital.

Some investors welcomed the tougher supervision, saying it was long overdue.

“This amount of oversight is something that has been lacking in the corporate board room in most banks,” said Joel Conn, president of Lakeshore Capital in Birmingham, Ala.

In March, the 19 largest banks, including Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, completed capital reviews that allowed many to increase dividends or buy back shares. The new reviews are part of a broader effort, which includes the Dodd-Frank financial regulation legislation, to tighten supervision of financial companies and reduce the risk of another crisis.

Before the recent crisis, “many bank holding companies made significant distributions of capital, in the form of stock repurchases and dividends, without due consideration of the effects that a prolonged economic downturn could have on their capital adequacy,” the Fed said in its proposed rule.

The initiative may compel banks to hold additional capital and reduce profitability measured by return on equity, said Bert Ely, an industry consultant based in Alexandria, Va.

“There will be tremendous pressure to downsize,” he said, or have “financial engineers to come up with new forms of shadow banking” by moving activities outside commercial banks.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=edc1d70ae1f221ace58ee42cfbb55223

Filed Under: Economy News Tagged With: , ,