April 27, 2024

Southern Africa Development Fund Mired in Debt

Today that program, the Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund, is in its death throes, apparently victimized by mismanagement, insider dealings and a lack of oversight by federal officials. Current and former fund officials are fighting over money, and the eventual cost to American taxpayers of the fund’s missteps could run into the tens of millions of dollars, public filings indicate.

On one level, the plight of this obscure fund is a common tale involving the hazards of foreign aid. But on another level, experts say, it points to wider problems bedeviling the federal agency that financed the fund, the United States Agency for International Development, or U.S.A.I.D. In fiscal 2013, the agency had a budget of $1.6 billion and helped administer more than $40 billion in foreign assistance.

“There is a primacy on getting money out of door and there is less urgency on how it is spent or how well it is spent,” said Jake Johnston, a research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a policy institute in Washington.

The Southern Africa fund was long led by the American civil rights leader Andrew Young. Its mission was to help start or expand businesses in Southern Africa in sectors including finance, manufacturing, communications and drilling by providing loans or other types of financing. Many of its current problems began in 2009 when agency officials approved a plan under which the organization was to transition into a private equity fund.

Since then, millions of dollars in management fees, legal expenses and other costs have been spent pursuing the failed plan. The fund’s value has plummeted by more than 60 percent since 2009, to $18 million from $48 million, the group’s tax filings show.

A spokesman for the aid agency, Raphael Cook, declined to make officials of the agency available for an interview about the Southern Africa fund. “We require all our grantees to use sound business judgment and uphold their fiduciary responsibilities,” Mr. Cook said in a statement.

The current chairman of the fund, Carlton A. Masters, and a director of the group, Peter V. Emerson, did not respond to interview requests. However, in a statement issued through a lawyer, John Q. Kelly, the fund said that the organization had succeeded in its mission. Agency officials called its track record “mixed.”

Three former top fund executives are claiming in an arbitration proceeding that the fund owes $1.4 million in fees to a management firm they had founded to pursue the privatization effort. The firm, Inflection Capital Partners, received some $4 million from the fund under a deal that a former fund director described as too lucrative. The fund is claiming in the arbitration proceeding that the former insiders violated the fund’s agreement with the aid agency by overpaying themselves more than $840,000.

Lars Liebeler, a lawyer in Washington who represents the former fund executives, described the fund’s claim as groundless. He declined to make them available for interviews.

The current fight is far from the first time that the fund has been involved in controversy or internal disarray. Over the years, government auditors have criticized its operations, and the group has chosen to deal with management problems in unusual ways.

Around 2008, for example, fund directors learned that an official of the group had solicited $100,000 in personal loans from the developer of the Mount Meru Hotel, a resort in Tanzania underwritten by the fund. The official then allowed the developer, a local businessman, to withdraw unauthorized funds from the hotel’s account.

But even after an internal investigation determined the officials’s actions had violated federal regulations and fund policies, he was not fired. Instead, Mr. Young decided to overlook the man’s actions and left him in charge of another fund-financed project in Tanzania.

“I am a pastor and I believe in giving people another chance,” said Mr. Young, the former congressman, United Nations ambassador and mayor of Atlanta, in an interview in 2009.

For years, Mr. Young and Mr. Masters, while directors of the fund, were also partners in a lobbying firm based in Washington called GoodWorks International that represented some African countries including Tanzania, a nation in which the fund did business.

Mr. Young, who did not respond to interview requests, retired last year from both the fund and the lobbying firm.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/business/southern-africa-development-fund-mired-in-debt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix Blog: Untangling What Companies Pay in Taxes

The tax filings of companies, like those of individuals, are confidential. When individual companies want to make the case that they pay large amounts of tax – as many do – they often point to complex calculations from their financial statements that portray the companies in the best light. For an outsider, it can be hard to know how many accounting assumptions go into these calculations and how accurately they reflect the company’s actual tax payments.

But there is one standardized measure of corporate taxes that allows for meaningful comparisons among companies and industries. It is known as Cash Taxes Paid and appears in the public reports that companies are required to file for investors. The category reflects the combined amount of corporate income tax that a company pays in a given year, to foreign governments, the United States government and state and local governments.

This number often varies significantly from year to year, depending on a company’s accounting strategy and on how many tax breaks it qualifies for that year. As a result, a single year’s Cash Taxes Paid number can be misleading. But in a 2008 academic paper, three accounting professors — Scott Dyreng of Duke, Michelle Hanlon of M.I.T. and Edward Maydew of the University of North Carolina — suggested that looking at several years, at least, could offer insight into corporate taxes.

For a column for the Sunday Review this week, I asked SP Capital IQ, a financial research group, to collect the last six fiscal years of Cash Taxes Paid for the companies in the Standard Poor’s 500-stock index. Capital IQ then compared these numbers to the companies’ pretax earnings, including unusual items, for the same six years. Together, the two statistics create an effective tax rate for each company, as well for various industries.

The numbers show that oil companies and retailers pay relatively high tax rates, as you can see in this chart. Technology companies, pharmaceutical companies and utilities have lower-than-average tax rates. In all, the average rate for the S.P. 500 was 29.1 percent over last six years.

The number helps make clear that despite a relatively high official corporate income-tax rate of 35 percent in the United States, most companies do not pay nearly that much, thanks to loopholes. Remember: the 29.1 percent includes not only federal corporate income taxes but also foreign, state and local.

Soft-drink companies are among those paying taxes well below average, partly because of their ability to locate the manufacturing plants for soda concentrate in low-tax countries, as I discuss in the column. Coca-Cola paid a combined tax rate of 15.25 percent between 2007 and 2012, while PepsiCo paid 21.31 percent.

The companies chose not to discuss their tax strategies in detail with me, but each did issue a statement in response to my questions.

From Amanda Rosseter, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman:

The Coca-Cola Company is a compliant taxpayer globally, paying all legally required income taxes in the U.S. and every country in which our subsidiaries operate.

As a global company with products sold in more than 200 countries, more than 80% of our unit case volume is sold outside the United States. The fact that our effective tax rate is lower than some other companies in the S.P. 500 is reflective of the fact that less than 20% of our volume comes from sales in the U.S., which has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

From Aurora Gonzalez, a PepsiCo spokeswoman:

We cannot comment on the tax rates of other companies or industries. PepsiCo’s tax rate is driven by the tax laws and regulations of the approximately 200 countries and territories in which we do business, and we pay all of our tax obligations in full.

Article source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/untangling-what-companies-pay-in-taxes/?partner=rss&emc=rss

French Cabinet Ministers Disclose Their Financial Worth

The publication Monday of the estate holdings of the 38 cabinet members of the French government, however, was a veritable event, a moment of unprecedented transparency in France that was anticipated by politicians with dread, pleasure or disgust, but rarely indifference.

Officials on the left and the right deemed it a dangerous exercise in voyeurism, while others lauded it as an inevitable, democratic step. But there was broad agreement that in France, where a politician’s right to privacy in matters financial (and amorous) has long been considered a sacred principle of public life, and where money remains an uncouth topic for polite conversation, the disclosures were uncomfortable and quite novel for the ruling class.

Ordered by President François Hollande, the public declarations are among several measures intended to “moralize” French politics after the admission by his former budget minister, Jérôme Cahuzac, that he had maintained an undeclared and well-padded bank account in Switzerland.

Mr. Cahuzac resigned last month, though not before repeatedly and angrily proclaiming his innocence.

“Transparency!” Mr. Hollande vowed in a televised address last week. “This is not about exhibiting, this is not about undermining,” he said. Rather, the disclosures are meant to reassure citizens that “those who are responsible for the public coffers” do not see “an accumulation of wealth” while in office.

French financial disclosure requirements are among the most lax in Europe.

With a bill to be introduced this month, Mr. Hollande intends to make it mandatory for senior government officials and aides, parliamentarians and some local officials to disclose estate holdings, which include real estate, furniture and vehicles, as well as bank and investment accounts. Officials will not, however, be required to make public their current tax filings, which in some cases show significant salaries.

The declarations released Monday evening showed some cabinet members to be near the French median — determined by a state agency in 2010 to be 113,500 euros or about $150,000 — but many were well above. A handful of the officials had chosen to disclose their holdings in advance, some to prove they had nothing to hide, others to reveal their wealth with time to explain.

With the economy stagnant, unemployment high and taxes rising, there were strong concerns about angry reactions among the public.

In the Monday edition of the newspaper Sud-Ouest, Michèle Delaunay, a junior minister and former dermatologist, revealed assets valued at 5.4 million euros (about $7 million), a number she said she feared would be “difficult to understand for the majority of the French.”

Laurent Fabius, who in addition to serving as foreign minister is the grandson of an important early-20th-century art dealer, kept mum about his holdings until Monday evening, when he revealed assets totaling about 6 million euros (about $7.8 million).

Some tried to defuse tensions with self-derision.

“I have a T-shirt from David Beckham, so I think I need to put that in my estate declaration,” Aurélie Filippetti, the culture minister, told France 2 television last week, while insisting that her 71-square-meter Parisian apartment was her sole possession of consequence. (The apartment was valued at 710,000 euros — about $925,000 — in her declaration Monday. She also disclosed about 11,000 euros, or $14,400, in the bank and 314,000 euros, or about $410,000, in debt; the T-shirt was not listed.)

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a fixture on the far left but not a member of the government, volunteered on his blog that he owned an apartment in Paris (purchased for 346,750 euros, about $453,000), a country house (purchased in 1996 for the equivalent of $120,000), and savings of 150,000 euros, or about $196,000. First, however, he noted: “I measure 1.74 meters tall. I weigh 79 kilos.”

Mr. Mélenchon went on to list his waist measurement and shoe size, and to note that his hair is “natural” and “not dyed.” He is also looking for a larger apartment, he said, and thanked “those who can make me a good offer.”

Mr. Mélenchon and other critics have noted that it seems unlikely the disclosures could have caught Mr. Cahuzac, especially because they were not accompanied by an enforcement mechanism, at least not yet.

If a disclosure is not independently verified, “it’s worth nothing,” said Jean-François Copé, the president the Union for a Popular Movement, the center-right political party that is the primary opposition to Mr. Hollande’s Socialist Party.

Mr. Copé accused Mr. Hollande of diverting attention from more serious matters. “Poor France!” he lamented on French television. “With the acceleration of deficits, the acceleration of unemployment, with the necessity of making important reforms, what is the debate of the day? To know how to make a Richter scale of ministers more or less rich?”

Mr. Copé, who works as a corporate lawyer when he is not serving as party leader, in addition to holding positions as a mayor and a member of Parliament, has said he will not publish an accounting of his assets unless legally obligated.

The disclosure requirements were opposed within Mr. Hollande’s party as well.

“To declare, to verify, to punish, this is transparency,” Claude Bartolone, the Socialist president of the lower house of Parliament, told the newspaper Le Figaro last week. “To render public, this is voyeurism.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/europe/french-cabinent-ministers-disclose-their-financial-worth.html?partner=rss&emc=rss