December 22, 2024

DealBook: Live Blog: Senate Panel Hearing on MF Global

Jon S. Corzine, MF Global's former chief executive, testifying in December at a House hearing into the collapse of the firm.Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto AgencyJon S. Corzine, MF Global’s former chief executive, at a House committee hearing this month into the collapse of the firm.

The congressional inquiry into MF Global continues, a hearing that will focus on the collapse of the commodities brokerage and the disappearance of an estimated $1.2 billion in customer money. Jon S. Corzine, the former leader of the brokerage who testified before a House panel last week, is appearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday. Lawmakers will also hear, for the first time, from two of Mr. Corzine’s former top deputies: Bradley Abelow, MF Global’s chief operating officer, and Henri J. Steenkamp, the firm’s chief financial officer.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=36c08a413cd405e82b9acbcd51bbd031

DealBook: Live Blog: House Panel Hearing on MF Global

Jon S. Corzine, former chief of MF Global, arrived to testify at a House Agriculture Committee hearing.Jay Mallin/Bloomberg NewsJon S. Corzine, former chief of MF Global, arrived to testify at a House Agriculture Committee hearing.

Jon S. Corzine, the former chief of MF Global, is set to appear before the House Agriculture Committee on Thursday to answer questions about the collapse of his brokerage firm and the disappearance of up to $1.2 billion in customer money. The panel began at 9:30 A.M.

Refresh nowUpdating…Feed

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a9b69114604f64c6037d552135c1de95

Bucks Blog: Lessons for Investors in MF Global’s Collapse

Customers of the bankrupt commodities brokerage firm MF Global have not had an easy time since the firm collapsed on Oct. 31. Some customers’ commodities trading accounts have been transferred to other firms, though not the full value. And those who had securities accounts or who held cash in their accounts have not seen any of their money yet.

More worrisome is that the court-appointed trustee has reported that $1.2 billion appears to be missing from clients’ accounts, possibly because the firm used some of its customers’ money to meet its own obligations in its last days.

If it is true that the firm violated the rule requiring that customers’ money be segregated from the firm’s, it raises the question, Paul Sullivan writes in his Wealth Matters column this week, of whether investors’ money is being properly protected — not only at commodities brokerage houses but at other types of firms.

Paul spoke to several investment advisers who now tell their clients to do extensive research on any firm where they’re planning on putting their money. But one piece of advice they now give is an old one: don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Are you one of MF Global’s customers who has been hurt in the fallout? And even if you are just watching the case unfold, do you have any advice for your fellow investors?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8ff60a1ea562ebcc4c67ac75b600e606

Bucks Blog: Tuesday Reading: Patients Raise Funds on the Internet, Too

November 22

Tuesday Reading: Patients Raise Funds on the Internet, Too

Patients turn to the Internet to raise money, gratitude can make you feel better, an app to help win Black Friday and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2fdb1606bccc094db8b0da4c338e52a8

Staying Alive: A Small-Business Owner Copes With a New Problem: A Rush of Orders

Staying Alive

The struggles of a business trying to survive.

The sudden rush of buyers I described in my last post has continued — we sold another $80,000 in the last week and sales for October total $302,129. Year to date we’re at $1,798,892. My goal at the beginning of the year was to average $150,000 a month. Mission accomplished, with two months to spare!

In the last two weeks of September and the first two weeks of October we sold $411,856 worth of tables. That’s two and a half months’ worth in four weeks. Our backlog of orders has ballooned from two weeks to 10 weeks. My problem of not enough work has suddenly morphed into a question of how to get the work done on time.

For most of this year, until the end of August, our backlog was swinging between three and five weeks. The backlog was trending downward, as the people I hired in the spring, and the machines I bought a little later, brought our monthly production up. In the first quarter, we built $418,742 worth of tables. Second quarter: $502,064. Third quarter: $508,391. Sales had also trended up a little, so our greater capacity was appropriate for that higher level — or it was until sales stopped.

The sudden drought prompted me to consider cutting capacity. The subsequent deluge has me wondering whether the increase in sales represents a permanent rise in incoming orders, or whether it’s a blip. If sales stay high, I have the opportunity to increase our production capacity, run more volume through the shop, and make more money.

Most of the new jobs we have booked have been the kind of stuff we ordinarily do: a piece or two per client, with a total value of $10,000 to $30,000. Some have been smaller, and we have had a few larger ones as well. But this year we sold two jobs of extraordinary size to the same client: the first, which came in at the end of July, was for $82,575. The second, which landed on Oct. 7, was more than twice that size: $169,369. That’s 14 percent of our sales to one customer. And that second job also accounts for half of my current backlog. Given that I don’t expect to be taking orders like that very often, I’m reluctant to consider them in planning future production capacity.

Running a larger backlog wouldn’t appear to be much of a problem. As long as we make our promised delivery dates, it just means that we know we’ll be busy for 10 weeks instead of for four or five, which is our usual situation. There is one negative effect of a bigger backlog: we cannot take orders from clients who need things in a hurry. Already this week I’ve had to turn away three prospective clients, whose jobs would have totaled more than $35,000. They all wanted delivery in four to five weeks, which I  could not promise. This problem tends to correct itself: we get busy, we turn down jobs, we sell less, our backlog shrinks back to where it needs to be, and the quick-turn jobs go into the books again. Of course the jobs we turned down, and the money that went with them, are gone forever.

Last week, at our weekly meeting, we reviewed our build schedule for the next two months. The critical date is Dec. 1, when we will need to deliver the $169,000 job. It absolutely cannot be late — we got the job because we promised to deliver on time. The client wasn’t fussy about an extra dollar or two here or there as long as I hit that deadline. And just to make sure I was paying attention, they stipulated that the job would be done on a net 30 basis — no money for me until I deliver. These are not terms I would have chosen, but we just completed a successful job for them and we were paid 26 days early.

At the weekly meeting, I pointed out that in order to complete the job on time, we will have to do a lot of work in October. We will have to build $206,921 worth of tables this month, I said, when we have been averaging $169,463. But if we can process all of this work, we will be in a good cash position by the end of the year — and if I am feeling prosperous and happy, bonuses are likely to follow. I also authorized unlimited overtime.

You might think that this would be a good moment to hire more people. Unfortunately, the skilled workers we need to increase production are not readily available. Our work is so specialized that it takes months to convert ordinary woodworkers into conference-table experts. So temps can’t help me. And outsourcing doesn’t work for me, either. Remember, our specialty is delivering superior work in the shortest time. When we outsource, we give up control of quality and schedule.

If only I could temporarily hire a highly trained cabinetmaker who already knows our production methods — and then get rid of him as soon as we finish our big project! Actually, there is such a person — and he was sitting next to me in my office: Nathan, my sales engineer. I had promoted him from the bench to the office in 2010, but I recently turned him right back around. We won’t be able to take new orders for a couple of weeks anyway, so I don’t need him to write proposals. He has been back at his old bench for a week now and has already completed two projects. He’ll be out there for at least the rest of October, and perhaps some of November as well. That means I am temporarily demoted as well: I’m answering phone calls and writing proposals again.

So far, we are running ahead of schedule on the October build. I don’t know if it’s my fantastic leadership skills, the chance for a bonus, the extra worker, a run of good luck, or all of the above. But it looks like we’ll head into November in good shape.

I’m still kicking around the idea of hiring another builder on a permanent basis and even interviewed a candidate who would be a good fit. But I’m not at all certain the high level of sales will continue, particularly given that the beginning of December is usually dead, dead, dead. And that’s right when our backlog will suddenly shrink to four weeks again. Any other time of the year I would take a few quick-turn jobs to keep things busy, but I don’t expect our phones to be ringing then.

So I’m afraid I won’t be doing any more to bring down the unemployment rate this year.

Paul Downs founded Paul Downs Cabinetmakers in 1986. It is based outside of Philadelphia.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=551efada5aa332584d5089c960b41280

You’re the Boss Blog: Are You Managing Your Unemployment Insurance?

Thinking Entrepreneur

An owner’s dispatches from the front lines.

Every Nov. 30, the State of Illinois sends out a statement that tells businesses what rate they will pay in the coming year for unemployment insurance. I view the rate as one indication of how I did this year as a manager. This time around, I’m anticipating a gift, because we had no unemployment claims this year, and I expect the rate to go down. In a bad year, the statement feels more like a reprimand, one that comes with a bill attached.

As you can read in the helpful article The Times just published about unemployment insurance, businesses ultimately pay the bill for unemployment claims. The state may write the check, but the money comes from employers. Most important — and something a lot of small-business owners don’t understand — is this: The more people you lay off or fire “without cause” in the current year, the more you will have to pay into the system for the next three years, at least in Illinois (it varies by state). On the other hand, if you have a good year and manage your people well, you can keep the rate down.

In my case, because of a few claims made after the economic crisis first hit, my rate jumped to 3.8 percent, from 2.1 percent. I have 110 employees, and that jump increased the cost of unemployment insurance for my company by about $24,000 per year. It is the cost of doing business, especially the cost of doing business in a bad economy. Make no mistake: I understand that unemployment insurance is an essential lifeline for people who have lost their jobs. But I also know that it can be a big expense for a company that is already struggling.

When times are good, this is much less of an issue. Fewer employees are laid off and those who do lose their jobs tend to stay unemployed for less time and to collect fewer benefits. When the economy goes bad, of course, many companies are forced to lay off employees, and those laid off are less likely to find another job. But this is not just a function of a bad economy — it can also be a function of bad management. Trust me, I know.

My unemployment rate used to be at the maximum, and it wasn’t because the economy forced me into mass layoffs. It was many years ago, and it was because I was hiring the wrong people — people who ultimately got fired and became eligible to collect unemployment. Our hiring has gotten much better, largely because I have found people who are much better at it than I am. In the old days, only about half of the people I hired worked out well. Today, we’re probably closer to 80 percent. That means there are far fewer people to unhire, and that saves us from wreaking havoc on both the employees’ lives and our unemployment rate.

This is really about recognizing that great companies have great hiring protocols. It is about placing the right ads, interviewing well and checking references. It is also about recognizing when you have made a mistake — and recognizing it quickly. In Illinois, you have 30 working days before you become liable for a person’s unemployment claims. Most of the time that is enough, although for some jobs — like outside sales — it really isn’t. But there is more you can do to avoid the need to fire someone, and that’s good for both parties.

If there is a problem with an employee, the situation has to be managed. It starts with honest conversations about what the problem is. There should be a plan for improvement, and there should be a clear understanding that things have to improve or the situation will be unacceptable. After a couple of conversations, one of three things should happen:

Best case, the employee improves. Great.

Second-best case, the employee sees the writing on the wall and finds another job — perhaps having concluded that the boss is the problem, which may well have been the case. Or maybe the employee just wasn’t right for that particular job. Or has outgrown it. Or the job has outgrown the employee. Regardless, the employee has moved on, and the problem is solved. Win-win.

And then there is the last group, the people who are not getting better and are not looking for a new job. Obviously, many of these people will leave their bosses no choice but to fire them. When you get better at the hiring and management process, this group shrinks significantly. And that’s good for all concerned.

The costs of unemployment insurance are substantial enough that they should be taken into account when considering layoffs. If sales have fallen and laying someone off is looking like the smart and responsible thing to do, think again. And do the math.

If this is a good employee, and you think it’s likely that either the business will rebound in a few months or there might be some attrition, you might be better off toughing it out and keeping the person around. In Illinois, the insurance increase can end up costing you more than 50 percent of a person’s salary if he or she doesn’t get another job (although the cost will be spread out over the following three years).

It comes down to this. You might be better off paying people to get some work done — even if it is painting the walls, cleaning out files, contacting old customers, doing research and development or building inventory — rather than paying them to stay home and look for a job. And if you end up hiring them back in a few months, you will have saved little and you will probably have done damage to the employee and to your relationship. It’s also not great for other employees who may wonder how secure their own jobs are.

Good employees are valuable assets. This is all very tricky, and sometimes you have to make decisions that require a crystal ball — unfortunately, they seem to be on back order. Someone at the crystal-ball factory must have laid off too many people.

Jay Goltz owns five small businesses in Chicago.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4bbedc6b11286c6c6b49e515819978a8

Bucks Blog: Thursday Reading: Missteps Exposed Patient Data Online

October 06

Thursday Reading: Missteps Exposed Patient Data Online

Missteps led to online exposure of patient data, save money by tightening your data belt, trading in your old iPhone and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=297a72b1ddee8316e6c967729d4ecbf7

Wealth Matters: Decoding the Wide Variations in House Appraisals

The appraisal for the condo initially came in at exactly the dollar amount we needed to refinance it without putting up any more money — something I found fishy but did not question since it worked to our advantage.

But a week later, the appraisal management company that had sent out the appraiser reviewed his valuation and revised it downward, determining that instead of 20 percent equity in the condo, we had only 10 percent.

That’s when I called up the loan officer at the bank and basically asked the question homeowners everywhere are asking: How are you determining the value of my home? After all, both numbers seemed to me to be rather arbitrary.

I eventually prevailed and got the refinancing.

But around that time, I got the renewal letter for the homeowner’s insurance on our house in Connecticut and was shocked to see that it was being insured for a value 14 percent higher than we paid in 2008. I know homeowner’s insurance is meant to cover the cost of replacing the house, but the price we paid for our home in 2008 was not just for the house but included the yard, the street where we live, the property taxes, the schools and other intangibles. And the price I could get for the house now is less than I paid back then. So why the high appraisal?

The question isn’t a new one. After all, appraisals seemed to be just as subjective when the market was moving up. Why is the process so opaque? I set out to try to figure that out. Here are a few things I’ve found that can improve the outcome, though I can’t promise that you’ll be entirely satisfied.

SELLING AND BUYING One component of selling a home has always been gauging the emotion of a prospective buyer. But several brokers told me that buyers and sellers who need financing for a home should be concentrating instead on the temperament of the bank lending the money.

“Over the past two years, houses are not worth what the owners want or what the buyers will pay for them,” said Peggy Bates, a broker with William Pitt Sotheby’s International Realty in Stamford, Conn. “A house is worth what the appraiser says it is.”

She says she makes prospective clients have their house appraised before she will list it. If they insist on determining their own value, she said, she makes them sign an agreement to drop the price in four weeks if the house does not sell.

Her tough-love approach may be hard for some to swallow but it just reflects banks’ caution in making new mortgages with so many bad ones on their books.

But don’t assume that the appraiser will return with a value for your house that you agree with. First, banks are increasingly bringing in appraisers from other towns, if not other states. While this is done to comply with provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act aimed at establishing objectivity and preventing agents and mortgage brokers from influencing the outcome, it often produces results that fail to fully account for the central tenet of real estate: location.

Joseph C. Magdziarz, president of the Appraisal Institute and an appraiser outside of Chicago, defended his industry’s work but said many appraisers were now pressed to write their reports more quickly and for less money. In cities like Chicago, he said, local knowledge is crucial because prices can vary from block to block and also floor to floor in high-rises.

Even if the appraiser is local, Mr. Magdziarz advises people to review a copy of the report. “The appraiser who did my house talked about my fireplace, but I don’t have one and he got the size of the living area all wrong,” Mr. Magdziarz said.

REFINANCING The lure of incredibly low mortgage rates has piqued interest in refinancing existing mortgages. After all, going from a rate of 6.5 percent to 4.5 percent means significantly lower payments each month.

But lending requirements are strict even for people with an existing mortgage who have no problem making their current payments.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=50b2a8440e120e3681a7a017127bc457

BUSINESS: Talking Money With Elmo

In the wake of the financial crisis, “Sesame Street” is teaching children financial literacy. Ron Lieber talks to Elmo about saving and sharing.


Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1e667387313d8717871757a5ba3fe9d2

The Haggler: Discount Hotel Rates Raise Question of a Tax Dodge

Q. In June, I used Priceline’s “name your own price” service and bid $70 per night, for a hotel room in Seekonk, Mass. Under the terms, I was to pay $70 per night, plus taxes and service fees.

When I checked out of the hotel, I was given a receipt, but by accident, the hotel gave me a receipt with the rate it had charged Priceline for my room, rather than what Priceline had charged me.

I didn’t hang on to the receipt, unfortunately, so I can’t be specific. But Priceline was charged much less than $70 per night, which is no surprise. The company earns its profit by giving me a good deal, negotiating an even better deal with the hotel, and then pocketing the difference. Fine.

What caught my attention, though, was that the receipt for Priceline included tax and service fees, and even with those fees added in, the total nightly rate was less than $70.

My question is this: Why was I charged taxes and fees, over and above the $70 a night rate I paid, if Priceline also paid taxes and fees, albeit at the lower, discounted rate?

I have the feeling that I was taxed twice. Unless, that is, Priceline remitted both the tax I paid and the tax it was charged by the hotel, which I kind of doubt.

I’m thinking this can add up to big money for Priceline and other retailers who negotiate lower rates and then pocket the tax it charged customers.

What do you think a prudent consumer should do next?

Ellen Jaffe

Rego Park, N.Y.

A. Ms. Jaffe, it turns out, has stumbled across an ongoing skirmish that is quietly being fought in courts and state legislatures across the country. But the fight isn’t really about whether customers are being taxed twice. It’s about whether the online travel companies are paying their fair share of tax.

Brace yourself. We will be doing some math.

Ms. Jaffe, according to a receipt e-mailed by Priceline, paid a total of $37.83 in “taxes and fees” for her three-night stay. How much of that was tax? Priceline will not say. According to the company, that’s a secret that hotels urge it to keep, on the theory that if guests knew just how deeply they discounted rooms, nobody would pay full price.

As a result, it’s impossible to know exactly how much of that $37.83 was tax and how much fees. Regardless, Priceline says that Ms. Jaffe paid tax once — an unknown portion of that $37.83.

Which gets us to the fair share question.

First, some arithmetic. Imagine that the hotel charges Priceline $40 a night for Ms. Jaffe’s room. To keep this simple, let’s say sales tax in Massachusetts is 10 percent. Priceline could, theoretically, collect tax from people like Ms. Jaffe at the $70 a night rate, which for a three-night stay would come to $21 dollars (three times $7). But it could render unto Caesar $12 (three times $4). The difference, $9, could be Priceline’s to keep.

Are the travel companies actually padding profits this way? Depends on whom you ask.

Priceline and other companies readily acknowledge that taxes are remitted on wholesale rates that they are charged by hotels. (In the case above, that would be $4 a day.) That is fair, they say, because online travel companies don’t actually own any rooms; they are merely connecting customers and hotels. Typically, retail tax rates apply to the operator of a hotel. Priceline does not operate any hotels. Ergo, taxes are remitted at the lower rate.

But dozens of counties and cities have sued online travel companies in recent years, contending that the markup they charge — the difference between the wholesale rate that companies like Priceline pay hotels and the retail rate they charges their customers — ought to be subject to tax.

So the question here boils down to this: What exactly is Priceline’s markup? Is it a service the company provides (in which case, it can be labeled a fee and is not subject to tax), or does it reflect the price for a room charged by the hotel (in which case it can be taxed).

Darrel J. Hieber, a lawyer who represents Priceline, notes that online travel companies have won favorable rulings in 14 of the 18 cases that have been adjudicated. Which is another way of saying that more than a dozen courts have decided that the travel companies are complying with the law.

True, says Michael Mazerov, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which researches policy issues with an eye to the needs of low-income families. But many of those laws, he says, were written before online travel companies — which are a new type of business, created by the Internet — were born. Unlike travel agents, Priceline books the room and collects money. The markup in most brokered transactions, Mr. Mazerov notes, are subject to tax.

“If you buy a piece of art at auction for $100, and $20 of that price is the commission for the auction house, tax is paid on the full $100 purchase price,” he says. “That $20 commission is part of the price and it’s subject to tax.”

ARE we talking about huge, budget-altering piles of money here? Nope. But the sums are large enough to have prompted both North Carolina and New York to change their laws so that online travel companies remit more tax in the future.

O.K., enough about taxes. In our next episode, it’s back to straight up consumer griping.

E-mail: haggler@nytimes.com. Keep it brief and family-friendly, and go easy on the caps-lock key. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/your-money/discount-hotel-rates-raise-question-of-a-tax-dodge.html?partner=rss&emc=rss