November 20, 2019

Conservative Voice Goes From ‘View’ to Fox News

Fox News announced a sudden shake-up of its morning show “Fox Friends” on Tuesday night, hiring Elisabeth Hasselbeck from ABC’s “The View” to replace Gretchen Carlson, who has been a co-host of the morning show for seven years.

Ms. Hasselbeck’s last day on “The View” will be Wednesday. She will start on the three-hour “Fox Friends” in mid-September, and Ms. Carlson will then move to Fox News at an unspecified daytime hour.

Ms. Hasselbeck, who as the lone conservative on “The View” sometimes came under attack from her more liberal co-hosts, will not feel that way on “Fox Friends.” The morning show is reliably conservative; the co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade seem to compete to one-up each other’s critiques of the president and Democrats.

A Fox News spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. But in a statement published by several Web sites, the network’s chief executive, Roger Ailes, said of Ms. Hasselbeck, “She has proven to be an excellent conversationalist and I am certain she will make a great addition to our already successful morning franchise.”

Mr. Ailes is simultaneously making changes to his network’s morning and evening lineups. Last week he confirmed that he planned to move Megyn Kelly, the anchor of the two-hour afternoon program “America Live,” to prime time this summer. It is unclear what time slot Ms. Kelly will take over, but speculation has revolved around 10 p.m., the hour held by Greta Van Susteren.

Ms. Kelly’s promotion will free up time in the afternoon, potentially for Ms. Carlson.

ABC indicated that the decision to leave “The View” hastily was Ms. Hasselbeck’s. Her departure began to be rumored some months ago, but she and the show’s creator, Barbara Walters, have sidestepped the issue in interviews and in conversations on the show.

Ms. Walters and another longtime co-host, Joy Behar, have previously announced that they planned to leave “The View” as well, leaving two hosts remaining, Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd.

In a statement on Tuesday night, ABC thanked Ms. Hasselbeck for her 10 years on the show. It noted her “passion and strong beliefs,” saying in part, “She stood behind her political views even if they were not the most popular opinions at the table, never shying away from voicing a difficult question.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/business/media/conservative-voice-hasselbeck-goes-from-view-to-fox-news.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Cisco Rides Technology Trends to 14.5% Increase in Profit

The world’s largest maker of networking gear has stumbled in recent years as companies bought less and new competitors arose. In response, Cisco moved into technologies like online video, cloud computing and delivery of high-speed Internet over wireless networks.

Those investments appear to be paying off. On Wednesday, Cisco said its sales of switches and routers were basically flat in its third fiscal quarter, which ended April 27. Sales of equipment for big cloud-computing data centers, video and wireless systems, however, were substantially higher.

“This is where the action is,” said John Chambers, Cisco’s chief executive, in an interview after the earnings announcement. “We bet on some of these seven years ago, now they’re paying off.”

Mr. Chambers wants Cisco to diversify into building sophisticated networked systems with many parts. That could prompt growth of its main switching and routing businesses, because it would mean even more Internet traffic from sensors, consumer devices, and industrial products to and from the Internet.

Cisco needs something to revive those businesses, which still make up nearly half of its revenue. Sales of switching gear, Cisco’s biggest sector, fell 2 percent compared with a year ago, while router sales were flat. Video equipment sales grew 30 percent, wireless equipment rose 27 percent and data center gear was up 77 percent, but their total revenue was about half that of switches and routers.

Over all, Cisco’s net income rose 14.5 percent compared with a year earlier, to $2.5 billion, or 46 cents a share. Revenue was up 5.4 percent, to $12.2 billion. By the nonstandard accounting measures popular with many tech companies, Cisco had net income of 51 cents a share, up 6.3 percent from a year earlier. Wall Street analysts, based on a survey by Thomson Reuters, had projected net income of 49 cents a share and revenue of $12.18 billion.

“The new products got them out of what looked like a tough quarter,” said Eric Suppinger, an analyst with JMP Securities in San Francisco.

Results for Cisco, which is based in San Jose, Calif., are often taken as a barometer of overall business spending. Sales in North America rose 10.4 percent, to $7.1 billion, and Mr. Chambers described the business environment as “slow but steady.” Sales in Europe were lower, he said, primarily because of weakness in countries like Spain. “You’re beginning to see Europe bottom out, with the exception of the south,” he said.

Cisco shares were up more than 8 percent in after-hours trading, after closing down 0.28 percent at $21.21.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/technology/cisco-profit-rises-14-5.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

I.S.M. Reports Slower Growth at Services Companies

WASHINGTON (AP) — Growth at service companies slowed slightly in January as a result of weaker new orders and slower business activity. But hiring improved, providing a bright sign for the economy.

The Institute for Supply Management said Tuesday that its index of nonmanufacturing activity dipped to 55.2 in January. That was down from 55.7 in December, which was the highest level in nearly a year. Any reading above 50 indicates expansion.

The modest decline from December’s strong reading suggests the industry was not greatly hampered by an increase in Social Security taxes that reduced take-home pay for most Americans.

Companies did not single out the rise in payroll taxes in the survey, Anthony S. Nieves, chairman of the I.S.M.’s survey committee, said in a conference call with reporters.

The report measures growth in industries that cover 90 percent of the work force, including retailing, construction, health care and financial services.

Over all, economists were encouraged by the steady reading in the services index, as well as a sharp jump in the institute’s January manufacturing index released last week. The reports suggest economic growth is rebounding in the quarter from January to March, after shrinking from October to December.

A gauge of hiring in the services report rose to its highest level in nearly seven years. That was consistent with the solid job gains reported by retailers, construction companies and other service firms in the government’s January employment report, released last week.

Service and construction companies have added an average of nearly 195,000 jobs a month in the last three months. The increase in the employment gauge suggests the solid hiring will continue.

Paul Dales, an economist at Capital Economics, attributed the dip in the overall I.S.M. index to the Social Security tax increase. “But this blow has been small and cushioned by stronger demand in other sectors, namely construction,” he said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/business/economy/ism-reports-slower-growth-at-services-companies.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

You’re the Boss Blog: For Business Owners, the Health Care Details Begin to Emerge

Staying Alive

The struggles of a business trying to survive.

Last week, before the election, I received a fat envelope from Independence Blue Cross with our health insurance renewal rates for 2013. This happens about this time each fall, and it is not something I look forward to.

I’ve had a couple of good years — my rates fell in 2010 and 2011 — but this was preceded by a long string of years with double-digit increases. Which is discouraging, because the astronomic rise in costs wasn’t accompanied by any apparent rise in the quality of the health care we have been getting. Co-pays have gone up. Drugs have gotten more expensive. At the doctor’s office they still hand me that stupid clipboard with the paper questionnaire to fill out, then they make me wait another 30 minutes to see the doctor. Most problematic, in my opinion: I still can’t find a price list for any of the doctor’s routine services. So I have no way to compare the costs.

I open the envelope, wade through the pages of boilerplate and finally get to the heart of the matter. For the third year in a row, my rates have dropped. It’s not a huge amount, about 5 percent, but it’s better than another increase. The monthly charge for a single person has dropped from $330.89 to $315.23, and the rate for family coverage fell from $971.26 a month to $925.31. To put this in perspective, here are the rates for my cheapest policy options for the last seven years:

 

The drop from the peak in 2010 is significant, but I’m still paying 50 percent more for insurance that I was in 2005.

The envelope from Blue Cross was followed by an e-mail from our benefits administrator, with a spreadsheet attached that recapped all of the pricing information and added a whole lot more. Most of it was procedural, laying out the steps required for me to renew the policies for all my workers. But one of the tabs in the sheet was titled “Health Care Reform” and laid out all of the ways that the Affordable Care Act — a k a Obamacare — would be changing the landscape. It’s a long list, sorted by date, and progressing from now until the date of full implementation in 2014. This item in particular caught my eye:

“Effective March 2013: Employers must provide a new notice to all employees explaining the availability of Exchanges and whether or not the employee may be eligible for insurance affordability programs through the Exchange. The notice must be provided to new employees upon date of hire. Guidance is pending.”

Scrolling further down the page, there was more:

“Effective January 1 2014: All U.S. citizens and legal residents must maintain ‘minimum essential coverage.’ Failure to obtain minimum essential coverage will result in financial penalties for groups with more than 50 employees. Some exceptions apply.”

And effective the same date, this:

“Health insurance will be available for purchase through the exchanges. Private and nonprofit insurers as well as states will offer small employers (up to 100 employees) the ability to purchase health insurance. Large employers (more than 100 employees) may purchase coverage through the exchanges beginning in 2017. Employers will not be required to purchase coverage through an exchange.”

Ah, the crux of the matter. Within a year I’ll have some idea of what it will save me (and cost my employees) to stop providing health insurance. I’ll have the option to let my workers get their own coverage, just the same way they get car and house insurance. I have not made up my mind whether this is a good idea or not, but soon I’ll have some real numbers to think about.

With President Obama’s re-election, the Affordable Care Act will be fully implemented. I voted for him, twice, partially in hope that something would be done about the health care mess. So this is what I get.

How about you? What has happened to your rates? What are you finding in your renewal packages? What do the health care changes mean for your company?

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

Article source: http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/for-business-owners-the-health-care-details-begin-to-emerge/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Ford Names an Operating Officer Who Is Seen as a Possible New Chief

The management changes solidified a closely watched succession race at Ford, the nation’s second-largest automaker, and reassured investors concerned about a premature departure by Mr. Mulally.

The decision to promote Mr. Fields was made by Ford’s board at its Oct. 19 meeting and was announced Thursday by Mr. Mulally and William C. Ford Jr., the company’s executive chairman.

In addition to naming Mr. Fields as chief operating officer, the company also said its Asia chief, Joe Hinrichs, would take over as president of the Americas division, which has been providing the bulk of Ford’s profit this year.

Mr. Mulally said he would assume a more strategic role at Ford and turn daily operations totally over to Mr. Fields, who he said had excelled during his seven years overseeing the all-important Americas division.

“The really key message today is that Mark is going to take responsibility for leading the business plan reviews of the whole company,” Mr. Mulally said. “I’m going to step back from that.”

By elevating Mr. Fields, the board gave him a running start to ultimately succeed Mr. Mulally. But some industry analysts say they believe the competition for the top job is not over.

Mr. Ford would not comment on whether Mr. Fields was in line to be the next chief executive. But he said it was even more likely now that Mr. Mulally’s successor would come from inside the company.

“I’ve said in the past I prefer it comes from inside, and I still see that,” Mr. Ford said.

It was Mr. Ford who reached outside the auto industry in 2006 to hire Mr. Mulally, who was then a senior executive at Boeing. Despite questions about his inexperience in the car business, Mr. Mulally transformed Ford from an unprofitable, regionally divided company into one of the most efficient and profitable automakers in the world.

This week, Ford reported third-quarter net income of $1.63 billion, its 13th consecutive profitable quarter. The company also recently announced a major reorganization of its European operations and an acceleration of investments in its Asian division.

Mr. Mulally said he expected to focus on new products, technology and strategic initiatives to further globalize Ford’s vehicle development and marketing.

He said he was asked to stay as chief executive for at least two more years by the board and Mr. Ford.

Mr. Ford reiterated earlier statements that he would prefer to keep Mr. Mulally at Ford indefinitely but that promoting other executives was important to the development of the overall management team.

“The strength of our people and stability of our team are competitive advantages for Ford,” Mr. Ford said. “We are fortunate to have Alan’s continued leadership as well as talented senior leaders throughout our company who are developing and working together and delivering our plan.”

Mr. Fields’s promotion to the chief operating officer position, which has been vacant for several years, is effective Dec. 1. Mr. Hinrichs will succeed him in the Americas job, and the Asia position will be filled by David Schoch, who currently leads Ford’s China operations.

Two other executives also were given enhanced job titles and responsibilities. Stephen Odell, head of European operations, was named an executive vice president and given added oversight of Ford’s business in Africa and the Middle East.

James Farley, head of global sales and marketing, was also promoted to executive vice president and assigned the additional duty of leading the revitalization of the Lincoln luxury brand.

The challenge for Mr. Mulally will be in ceding direct control of main subordinates to Mr. Fields, while still steering Ford through its European restructuring and Asian expansion.

“I have not had a C.O.O. before, but I am really looking forward to nurturing and supporting Mark and his team,” Mr. Mulally said.

Mr. Fields was not available for comment on Thursday. In a recent interview, he refused to talk about his future prospects at Ford or what changes he might implement if he was promoted.

Analysts said he has risen in Ford because of his discipline on costs and expertise in the production and delivery of new vehicles. “Mark Fields earned his stripes both on the cost side and the revenue side,” said Michelle Krebs, an analyst with the auto research site Edmunds.com.

But one analyst said Mr. Fields’s new role did not preclude the Ford board from selecting Mr. Hinrichs or another member of the revamped team to become the next chief executive.

“The next Ford C.E.O. is truly up for grabs,” Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley wrote in a research note. “We believe Ford is keeping its options open.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/fords-chief-executive-to-remain-through-2014.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Ford’s Chief Executive to Remain Through 2014

The management changes solidified a closely watched succession race at Ford, the nation’s second-largest automaker, and reassured investors concerned about an earlier departure by Mr. Mulally.

The decision to promote Mr. Fields was made by Ford’s board of directors at its Oct. 19 meeting and was announced Thursday by Mr. Mulally and William C. Ford Jr., the company’s executive chairman.

In addition to naming Mr. Fields as chief operating officer, the company also said its Asia chief, Joe Hinrichs, would take over as president of the Americas division, which has been providing the bulk of Ford’s profit this year.

Mr. Mulally said he would assume a more strategic role at Ford and turn daily operations totally over to Mr. Fields, who he said has excelled during his seven years overseeing the all-important Americas division.

“The really key message today is that Mark is going to take responsibility for leading the business plan reviews of the whole company,” Mr. Mulally said. “I’m going to step back from that.”

By elevating Mr. Fields, the board gave him a running start to ultimately succeed Mr. Mulally. Mr. Ford would not comment on that possibility directly, but he said it was even more likely now that the next chief executive would come from inside the company.

“I’ve said in the past I prefer it comes from inside, and I still see that,” Mr. Ford said.

It was Mr. Ford who reached outside the auto industry in 2006 to hire Mr. Mulally, who was then a senior executive at Boeing. Despite questions about his inexperience in the car business, Mr. Mulally transformed Ford from an unprofitable, regionally divided company into one of the most efficient and profitable automakers in the world.

This week, Ford reported third-quarter net income of $1.63 billion, marking its thirteenth consecutive profitable quarter. The company also recently announced a major restructuring of its European operations and an acceleration of investments in its Asian division.

Mr. Mulally said he expects to focus on new products, technology and strategic initiatives to further globalize Ford’s vehicle development and marketing.

He said he was asked to stay as chief executive for at least two more years by the board and Mr. Ford.

Mr. Ford reiterated earlier statements that he would prefer to keep Mr. Mulally at Ford indefinitely but that promoting other executives was important to the development of the overall management team.

“The strength of our people and stability of our team are competitive advantages for Ford,” Mr. Ford said. “We are fortunate to have Alan’s continued leadership as well as talented senior leaders throughout our company who are developing and working together and delivering our plan.”

Mr. Fields’s promotion to the chief operating officer position, which has been vacant for several years, is effective Dec. 1. Mr. Hinrichs will succeed him in the Americas job, and the Asia position will be filled by David Schoch, who currently heads Ford’s China operations.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/fords-chief-executive-to-remain-through-2014.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix: More Americans Are Renouncing Citizenship

The number of Americans who are renouncing their citizenship has been climbing in recent quarters.

Take a look at the chart below, courtesy of Andrew Mitchel, an international tax attorney who has been manually tallying the lists of expatriates published in the Federal Register. The chart is taken from his blog:

DESCRIPTIONSource: Andrew Mitchel; Treasury Department

A total of 499 Americans renounced their citizenship during the first quarter of this year. The number of people expatriating during the first quarter in each of the previous seven years averaged 115.

Now I’m sure a few readers are going to blame “ObamaCare” for this burst of expatriation. Mr. Mitchel, however, suggests that two technical tax-related changes inspired more people to give up their citizenship.

He writes in an e-mail:

First, in 2008 the expatriation rules were changed. There is no longer the 10 year U.S. tax return filing requirement. Although there is now a mark-to-market regime triggering gains upon expatriation, up to $636,000 of gain can generally be excluded for individuals expatriating in 2011 (the amount is annually adjusted for inflation). Further, non-U.S. citizen, nonresidents can now annually visit the U.S. for 120 or more days without becoming taxed as U.S. residents (under the pre-2008 rules, visits to the U.S. for more than 30 days during any of the 10 years following expatriation caused the individual to be treated as a U.S. resident for that year).

With the $636,000 exclusion from the mark-to-market gain, many individuals can expatriate without paying any U.S. tax. It is important to note, however, that some individuals, especially those with assets in foreign pension plans, may unexpectedly pay more tax than they realize. The circumstances of each individual considering expatriation must be closely analyzed to determine the amount of U.S. tax that will be due upon expatriation.

The second reason for the increase in expatriations, I believe, is the recent publicity regarding the penalties and voluntary disclosures for failing to report offshore bank and other financial accounts. The U.S. tax rules for U.S. citizens living overseas can be quite complex. The increase in awareness of the penalties has caused many individuals with dual citizenship to conclude that their U.S. citizenship is not worth the stress and hassle of the U.S. tax filing rules. The U.S. is almost the only country in the world that requires its citizens that live permanently in another country to continue to file tax returns in the country of citizenship. Combine the U.S. tax return filing complexities with the potentially bankrupting penalties for failing to report certain items, and many individuals conclude that their lives would improve by shedding their U.S. citizenship.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=351e215d7039fb59e7de75642c1711fb

You’re the Boss: Teaching Women to Think Like Angels

Natalia Oberti NogueraNatalia Oberti Noguera
She Owns It

The overwhelmingly male field of angel investing is about to become a bit more diverse. Ten women, including some business owners (TechCrunch has the full list), will soon learn the secrets of angel investing during the Pipeline Fund Fellowship’s inaugural six-month program for aspiring female angels. Beginning this month, the group, chosen from among 50 applicants, will attend monthly workshops on issues like due diligence and valuation, and will be paired with mentors who are seasoned male and female investors. The program, held in New York, will culminate with an investment by the group in a women-led, for-profit, socially conscious venture.

The Pipeline Fund Fellowship was founded by Natalia Oberti Noguera to address the lack of gender diversity in the world of venture capital, while also improving funding options for the types of businesses in which the fund will invest. “Our goal is to change the culture of the investment world,” she said. While other funds (such as Golden Seeds), and nonprofits (such as Springboard Enterprises) promote investment in women-led companies, Ms. Oberti Noguera, 27, said her program differs because it offers education, mentoring, and practical experience combined. Additionally, it is relatively accessible financially, requiring each fellow to pay $1,000 for the program and commit to investing $5,000 toward a $50,000 investment in a start-up that meets the fund’s specifications.

Elizabeth Crowell, who owns Sterling Place, a gift shop in Brooklyn, is among the angels-in-training. After building her business for seven years, she said she is ready for a different role and is eager to leverage her experience to help female entrepreneurs. A competitive swimmer who has coached the sport, Ms. Crowell said investing draws on elements of coaching, which she always loved. “As an investor, you’re on the sidelines to support,” she said. “It will be nice to be able to come up with ideas and not have to execute them,” she added. Although Sterling Place is not seeking capital, Ms. Crowell said, “sizing up different businesses and strategizing growth opportunities for them, may spark ideas for my own.”

While Ms. Crowell, 40, focuses on the program, her husband and business partner will handle more day-to-day responsibilities at the store. The couple, who have two young children, often liken their business to a third child. Ms. Crowell, who believes she will continue to invest after the program ends, said she suspects the companies in which she becomes involved will not occupy “the same emotional space.” One thing she said she knows for sure: “I won’t be showing up at the businesses every day, dealing with leaking roofs, sanitation permits and overflowing toilets.”

Another fellow, Erica Frontiero, 33, is a senior vice president in capital markets for GE Capital. She said that, while she spends her workdays raising funds for large companies, she lacks the confidence to invest in the start-ups of friends and friends-of-friends who seek her guidance. “I’d like to understand how the businesses I work with on a daily basis got where they are,” she said.

Ms. Frontiero sees a lack of resources for female entrepreneurs who wonder, for example, what is the right percentage of company ownership to give up, or, what is the likelihood that an investor will ask for a certain percentage. Despite the large number of women who are starting businesses, she said, “we still aren’t really talking about finances and investing with each other.”

In the months to come, we will follow the fellows as they become angels and decide where to invest their pooled resources.

You can follow Adriana Gardella on Twitter.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3743b8af15e22fc9898ba8318dd874f3

The Week’s Business News in Pictures

Almost seven years after her death, Estée Lauder still exerts a powerful hold on the company she founded with her husband, Joseph, in 1946. But the new chief executive, Fabrizio Freda, is credited with energizing the company. One modern innovation is the touch-sensitive product reader at the Clinique Smart Bar at Bloomingdale’s in Midtown Manhattan.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c2558f0dca2f64753cf11d273df4d1f9

Bucks: Credit Score Recovery Time After a Foreclosure

Wondering how long it will take your credit score to recover from a home foreclosure or short sale? That depends on how good your credit was in the first place, says John Ulzheimer, a credit reporting guru who blogs on the subject for mint.com.

Somewhat depressingly, the better your credit score was before your mortgage woes started, the longer it will take you to recover. Citing data from credit reporting firm FICO, Mr. Ulzheimer said it would take roughly three years for a consumer with a 680 FICO to recover to that level after a foreclosure, compared with seven years for someone with a 780 score. That’s because high scores require “pristine” credit files, he said, while a middling 680 doesn’t.

Late mortgage payments follow the same pattern. A person with a 680 score who pays 30 days late can bounce back to that level in about six months, compared with three years for someone with a 780 score. His (somewhat obvious) advice? Don’t miss payments.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6ec0e414ad1d57fee7508d5585d404fa