January 10, 2025

Bucks Blog: Thursday Reading: Tips for Succeeding in College

September 06

Thursday Reading: Tips for Succeeding in College

How to succeed in college, clothing retailers open stores just for men, a phone that can take a dunking and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/thursday-reading-tips-for-succeeding-in-college/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Wednesday Reading: When Restaurant Prices Vary by Reservation Time

September 05

Wednesday Reading: When Restaurant Prices Vary by Reservation Time

Restaurant prices that vary by reservation time, hackers who claim to have 12 million Apple device records, ways to save rubles in St. Petersburg and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/wednesday-reading-when-restaurant-prices-vary-by-reservation-time/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Tuesday Reading: A Study Questions the Advantages of Organic Food

September 04

Tuesday Reading: A Study Questions the Advantages of Organic Food

A Stanford University study questions advantages of organic food, a reminder that strokes aren’t just for older people, coping at the airport without a wallet and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/tuesday-reading-study-questions-advantages-of-organic-food/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Many Regulators Put Their Attention on How JPMorgan Marketed Its Funds

Regulators are examining JPMorgan Chase’s sales tactics, after claims that the nation’s largest bank pushed its own mutual funds over competitors’ investments.

Authorities are responding to current and former JPMorgan financial advisers who said they had felt pressure to sell the bank’s products even when cheaper or better performing options were available.

Several brokers told The New York Times that they had been encouraged to favor JPMorgan funds, and they described a broader culture that emphasized sales over client needs. Also, in the marketing materials of one major offering, JPMorgan published hypothetical performance results, even though actual returns existed, according to internal bank documents reviewed by The Times. In each case, the actual gains were lower than the theoretical results.

Now, regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Manhattan district attorney and officials in New Jersey and Delaware, have opened inquiries into JPMorgan’s sales practices, according to several people briefed on the activities but not authorized to speak on the record. The S.E.C. and New Jersey’s Office of the Attorney General have scheduled several interviews related to the case, these people said.

The people cautioned that these inquiries, directed at the bank’s Chase Wealth Management division, are at an early stage. No one at JPMorgan has been accused of any wrongdoing.

While the bank declined to comment on regulatory matters, a spokeswoman, Melissa Shuffield, said that JPMorgan “doesn’t pressure brokers to sell its funds over any other product.”

“We stand behind the integrity of our investment process and fund selection and always place our clients’ interests first in every decision,” Ms. Shuffield said.

In the wake of the financial crisis, JPMorgan made an aggressive effort in this area, building up its mutual fund offerings and expanding its brokerage sales force. The strategy, which runs counter to the approach favored by much of the industry, proved successful. Even as small investors left the stock market in droves, JPMorgan collected billions of dollars, becoming one of the largest mutual fund managers in the country.

JPMorgan managed to attract assets, even though the performance of its funds has been just above average. Fifty-nine percent of its funds beat their peer group average for the three-year period ending on June 30 of this year, according to Morningstar, a fund researcher.

JPMorgan’s efforts have been lucrative. The bank collects a fee on every dollar that it manages.

Such financial incentives, industry experts say, can create potential conflicts. The worry is that banks will favor their own product for profit reasons rather than focusing on clients’ interests. It is one of the major reasons many of JPMorgan’s rivals have backed away from selling their own mutual funds.

JPMorgan defends its strategy, saying that customers want its funds and that it has “in-house expertise.”

One of the bank’s core offerings is the Chase Strategic Portfolio, which contains roughly six investment models. These investments, which contain funds created by JPMorgan and competitors, are intended to provide ordinary investors with diversified exposure to stocks and bonds. The bank heavily promotes the Chase Strategic Portfolio in its branches around the country.

The product comes with a double layer of fees. Besides the underlying cost for its mutual funds, JPMorgan also collects an overall management fee.

Investors pay as much as 1.6 percent of assets annually. The bank says the average fee is closer to 1.2 percent, adding that competitors charge as much as 2.75 percent for similar products.

Prospective clients do not have a true sense of the product’s returns. Marketing documents for the Chase Strategic Portfolio highlight theoretical returns, even though many of the models have actual three-year returns, which were lower.

The bank said individuals who invest in the product are provided with actual performance. JPMorgan further noted that models in the Chase Strategic Portfolio, after fees, had gained 11 percent to 19 percent a year on average since 2009, which the bank says is competitive.

JPMorgan says it follows industry standards in its marketing. The firm says its common practice is to wait until all the components of the portfolio have a three-year return before citing performance in marketing efforts. The bank is currently preparing to add the real returns to sales materials.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/jpmorgan-pushed-sales-of-its-funds-even-at-clients-expense-brokers-say/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Its I.P.O. Botched, Facebook Looks Hard at Nasdaq

In the weeks since Facebook’s much-ballyhooed — and ultimately botched — initial public offering, its relationship with Nasdaq has soured.Illustration by The New York Times

Facebook’s debut was supposed to be Nasdaq’s ultimate coup.

But in the weeks since the social network’s much-ballyhooed — and ultimately botched — initial public offering, the relationship has soured.

In Facebook parlance, it’s complicated.

Executives at the Internet company are pinning much of the blame on Nasdaq, according to several people close to the company and its underwriters, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of continuing shareholder lawsuits. Tensions remain so high that Facebook is still considering switching exchanges and is weighing the costs of such a move, these people said.

As the drama plays out, Nasdaq, the first electronic stock market, faces one of its hardest tests since it was founded 41 years ago.

For years, the exchange, considered friendly to start-ups, was the preferred place for up-and-coming technology companies. Now, Nasdaq is trying to salvage its reputation with Facebook and the rest of Silicon Valley while also fending off the advances of its archrival, the New York Stock Exchange, which has ramped up efforts in the industry.

“Nasdaq will be wearing that albatross for quite a while,” said Lise Buyer, founder of Class V Group, an advisory firm for initial public offerings. “The errors associated with Facebook’s I.P.O. will now be part of Nasdaq’s conversations.”

Nasdaq's chief executive, Robert Greifeld, acknowledges that Facebook's I.P.O. could have been better handled.Lucas Jackson/ReutersNasdaq’s chief executive, Robert Greifeld, acknowledges that Facebook’s I.P.O. could have been better handled.

Nasdaq, for its part, has expressed contrition, with its chief executive, Robert Greifeld, publicly acknowledging the firm’s arrogance during the I.P.O. The exchange has also agreed to set aside $40 million for broker losses. Even so, Nasdaq defends its position as a major player in technology listings.

“For more than two decades, Silicon Valley has played a vital role in Nasdaq’s evolution,” said Joseph G. Christinat, a Nasdaq spokesman. “Nasdaq will always strive to be part of the Valley’s start-up ecosystem.”

Nasdaq’s troubles come at a challenging time for the industry.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is pressing exchanges to bolster controls, with open investigations on Nasdaq, N.Y.S.E. and others. Authorities are focusing on the Facebook I.P.O., trying to determine if Nasdaq acted improperly as it scrambled to push Facebook live and clear orders. So far, Nasdaq has not been charged with any wrongdoing, but the scrutiny represents a marked shift for the S.E.C., which has traditionally had a light touch with exchanges.

Facebook and its underwriters have been criticized for being too aggressive on the size and price of the offering. Still, many experts argue that it’s impossible to discount the psychological impact of Nasdaq’s problems.

“Very small actions can trigger very large dynamic mechanisms,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke.

Nasdaq is navigating a forest of questions, as rival N.Y.S.E. settles onto its turf.

N.Y.S.E., once known as the dowdy exchange of blue chips, has aggressively courted Silicon Valley in the last five years, calling on executives and holding private dinners at places like the Four Seasons in Palo Alto. The Big Board recently snapped up the listings of a number of technology start-ups, including LinkedIn, Pandora and Yelp.

While N.Y.S.E.’s sales pitch used to center on its established brand, it now talks about technology and client services. A few years ago, the exchange also revised requirements to make it easier for smaller technology companies to list. The two exchanges battled for months over Facebook. Nasdaq won, in part, because it agreed to shorten the so-called seasoning period for newly public companies. The move would allow Facebook to join the Nasdaq 100 three months after its listing, people with knowledge of the matter have said.

But the short-lived victory has become an ordeal.

In recent weeks, the divide between Nasdaq and Facebook has deepened, as both face a bundle of shareholder lawsuits. In June, Facebook filed a motion alongside its lead underwriters to combine these lawsuits in New York. Nasdaq, which faces some of the same suits, was left out of the motion. Shares of Facebook, which hit a low of $25, currently trade around $31.10, well below the offering price of $38.

Facebook is upset about Nasdaq’s lack of communication, according to people close to the company. Executives were left out of important decisions like whether the stock should begin trading at all given the crush of early issues. Once trading did begin on May 18, Nasdaq did not contact Facebook’s chief financial officer, David Ebersman, who was the main point person for the I.P.O.

Executives at the social network have also grown frustrated by the technology problems. Many order confirmations were delayed. These were eventually released hours later, along with stock that ended up in a separate Nasdaq account. But the unexpected flood of shares looked like a giant order of roughly 11 million shares, weighing on the stock, according people with knowledge of the matter.

Facebook executives believe Nasdaq added to the woes the next week. Before the second trading day, Nasdaq alerted traders to file claims by noon if they wanted financial “accommodations” for the I.P.O. Executives believe the notice encouraged investors to dump shares to prove a loss on Facebook, prompting the stock to fall more than $4 in the first hour of trading that day.

Perhaps most disconcerting was Nasdaq’s conference call with reporters on Sunday, just days after the I.P.O. On the call, Mr. Greifeld, Nasdaq’s chief, assured the press that Nasdaq’s errors had not affected the stock’s performance.

“It would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it didn’t have an impact on the stock price,” he said.

The statement was tantamount to an act of betrayal, according to those close to Facebook. Once again, the Facebook team was baffled. Why didn’t the exchange warn them about Mr. Greifeld’s comments? Incensed, a Facebook executive told Mr. Greifeld, “You don’t understand the hole you’re in.”

Most start-ups hoping to go public are not worried about encountering Facebook’s problems. As the largest Internet I.P.O. on record, Facebook attracted a barrage of coverage. Many industry insiders interviewed believe Nasdaq will move quickly to improve its controls. It is currently working with I.B.M., for instance, to review its entire technical system.

Still, the fumbles are ugly blemishes for an exchange that has prided itself on its tech heritage. After dominating technology listings for the last decade, Nasdaq’s ranking has slipped. So far this year, Nasdaq has accounted for 11 of the 24 technology listings, with the rest going to N.Y.S.E., according to Renaissance Capital, an I.P.O. advisory firm. “It might be an anomaly,” said Aaron Levie, the chief executive of Box, a data storage company. “But Nasdaq is getting more competition from N.Y.S.E., which has been really proactive out here.”

Amid mounting pressure, Mr. Greifeld made one more visit to Menlo Park three weeks ago.

In a meeting with Mr. Ebersman and other executives, he apologized, according to people briefed on the meeting. He acknowledged that he had said that Nasdaq’s problems did not impact Facebook’s price, but conceded that that assessment did not fully factor in the psychology of the market.

After that, a chill settled in the room, as several executives quietly scrawled his statement on their notepads.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/facebook-not-feeling-friendly-with-nasdaq/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Friday Reading: Teaching the Volt to Charge Smarter and Cleaner

January 27

Friday Reading: Teaching the Volt to Charge Smarter and Cleaner

Making the Volt charge smarter and cleaner, an online retailer gets five-star reviews for $2 a star, using symptom checklists to sell drugs and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1b7710df4b9b03d4a67e2984b8ae1a14

Economix Blog: How Readers Cut the Pentagon Budget

DAVID LEONHARDT

DAVID LEONHARDT

Thoughts on the economic scene.

More than 12,000 readers completed The New York Times’s interactive calculator on the Pentagon budget. The results are not scientific, of course. But among those readers who filled out the calculator, a few patterns emerged:

* Some of the most popular choices for budget cuts were administrative areas, including a reduction in recruiting expenses and a consolidation of retail stores on military bases. The second-most popular option over all was an audit of the Pentagon to reduce costs. Of the eight options that at least 50 percent of readers chose, five of them could plausibly be considered administrative.

* Cutting the purchase of weapons, ships and aircraft was nearly as popular as cutting administrative costs.

* Readers were more divided over cutting the number of troops. Bringing home some troops from Europe and Asia was the single most popular choice, picked by 85 percent of readers who filled out the calculator. But larger cuts to troop levels or the Pentagon civilian work force were less popular.

* The least frequently chosen set of options were those that cut pay or benefits for members of the military. The least popular option over all, selected by only 7 percent of readers, was a reduction in college tuition assistance. Options that reduced retirement benefits also tended to be unpopular.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=d4cfe9ec4154b23ff5cbb6318f220b67

Economix Blog: Facebook Chat About the ‘iEconomy’ Series

On Thursday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Charles Duhigg will join an hourlong Facebook conversation about The iEconomy, a series that examines challenges posed by increasingly globalized high-tech industries. The chat will take place on The New York Times’s Facebook page: facebook.com/nytimes.

The first article in the series, published on the front page of Sunday’s newspaper, provided a detailed look at the reasons that manufacturing jobs at Apple were drawn overseas, and are likely to stay there. The second article examines labor conditions inside Foxconn, one of Apple’s most important manufacturing partners.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=19ecb5255a296cb55f55ca9c8957aef5

Obama Urges Tougher Laws on Financial Fraud

In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama also said he would ask the attorney general to establish a special financial crimes unit to prosecute cases of large-scale financial fraud.

It is not clear how that effort would differ from the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, a cross-agency group that Mr. Obama established in November 2009. Its mission, as the White House put it then, was to “hold accountable those who helped bring about the last financial crisis and to prevent another crisis from happening.”

The two initiatives represent an attempt to give financial regulators a greater ability to police the financial markets. In addition, the proposals seek to acknowledge the continuing frustration among many Americans — exemplified by the Occupy Wall Street movement — that few financial executives have been prosecuted for their actions leading up to the crisis.

Given the election-year pressures and the continuing gridlock on Capitol Hill, neither measure is certain to win approval in this session of Congress.

The issue of how to deal with Wall Street firms that repeatedly violate securities laws has come into focus in recent months as the S.E.C. has stepped up its efforts to bring cases related to the financial crisis. Many of those cases involve financial companies that have violated the same laws many times before.

A New York Times analysis of S.E.C. enforcement actions over the last 15 years, published in November, found at least 51 cases in which the S.E.C. concluded that Wall Street firms had broken antifraud laws that, as part of settlements of earlier fraud cases, they had pledged never to breach. The 51 cases spanned 19 firms, including nearly all of the biggest financial companies — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase Company and Bank of America among them.

Mr. Obama first outlined his plans to crack down on repeat offenders in an economic speech in December in Osawatomie, Kan. “Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major antifraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender,” Mr. Obama said. “No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.”

Mary Schapiro, the chairwoman of the S.E.C., similarly called on Congress in November to raise the maximum penalties the commission could assess for securities laws violations, and to allow it to assess greater fines for repeat violations of antifraud statutes.

Currently, the S.E.C. can try to bring contempt charges only if a company has broken previous vows not to violate the law. In a letter to members of the Senate Banking Committee, Ms. Schapiro said that enhancing the S.E.C.’s ability to crack down on repeat offenders would “substantially enhance the effectiveness of the commission’s enforcement program by addressing existing limitations that have resulted in criticism regarding the adequacy of commission actions against those who violate the securities laws.”

The S.E.C. has also been criticized recently for its practice of allowing companies to settle allegations of securities fraud while neither admitting nor denying the charges. That is a standard practice used for years by the S.E.C. as well as other regulatory agencies, but it has come under increasing scrutiny since the financial crisis.

Most recently, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan rejected a proposed $285 million settlement in a case between the S.E.C. and Citigroup over a complex mortgage security that it marketed in 2007, as the housing market was beginning to crumble.

In his opinion, Judge Rakoff said the settlement’s “neither admit nor deny” terms left him with no conclusive evidence with which to determine whether the proposed punishment was just.

Judge Rakoff said such settlements, which often involve penalties of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, were frequently viewed by the settling companies “as a cost of doing business imposed by having to maintain a working relationship with a regulatory agency, rather than as any indication of where the real truth lies.”

In the State of the Union address, Mr. Obama said that banks and financial companies should be held accountable for their actions and should face the same type of consequences as anyone else who has been charged with breaking the law.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=5e6da63076b1660faaf9a22cfa9f124f

Bucks Blog: Tuesday Reading: Women May Suffer More From Pain

January 24

Tuesday Reading: Women May Suffer More From Pain

Adoptees use DNA testing to find family ties, a dearth of disclosure about expired airline tickets, women appear to suffer more from pain and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=25e49b359238b47de390ee63b7aebcf9