Your Online Source of Global Business News
I transform the mundane task of grocery shopping into a writing exercise, and I become my character.
Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
In one realm you’re moving forward in ignorance. In the other you’re moving backward with omniscience.
Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
11:58 a.m. | Updated
Citigroup’s board said on Tuesday that Vikram S. Pandit had stepped down as chief executive, effective immediately, and would be succeeded by the head of the bank’s European and Middle Eastern division, Michael L. Corbat.
His resignation comes after long-simmering tensions with the bank’s board. In particular, the board’s chairman, Michael E. O’Neill, had been increasingly critical of Mr. Pandit’s management, according to several people close to the bank.
Documents: Citi press releaseMr. Pandit was seen by some board members as not being able to quickly and effectively execute strategy, lurching from crisis to crisis, these people said. There were concerns he lacked the breadth of vision needed to turn the bank around. “He was considered more technically skilled,” one Citi executive said.
John P. Havens, the bank’s president and a longtime associate of Mr. Pandit, has also resigned.
Some at the bank said on Tuesday that they believed Brian Leach, the bank’s chief risk officer, could depart soon as well, especially because he was extremely close to Mr. Pandit.
Inside the bank, the news was greeted with shock. A huge gasp was audible on the trading floor in Manhattan as employees watched the news on monitors showing CNBC, according to several employees. When Mr. Havens’s resignation was reported, some employees on the trading floor jumped up from their chairs.
Hiroko Masuike for The New York TimesMichael Corbat was the head of Citigroup’s European and Middle Eastern division.
The surprising departures come just a day after the firm reported stronger-than-expected third-quarter earnings. Excluding a number of one-time charges — including a big loss tied to the continued exit from the Smith Barney brokerage — Citigroup earned $3.27 billion, or $1.06 a share. That exceeded analysts’ average estimate of 96 cents a share.
“There is nothing better than our third-quarter earnings announcement to demonstrate definitively that we have turned this company around,” Mr. Pandit said in a memo to employees.
Yet those results paled in comparison with the earnings announced on Friday by JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. Spurred by exceedingly low interest rates, and the Federal Reserve bond-buying program, there has been a recent resurgence in mortgage lending, bolstering those banks.
Yet Citigroup appeared to have been caught flat-footed. In its earnings call on Monday, John Gerspach, the bank’s chief financial officer, intimated that the bank was slow in staffing up to deal with the mortgage activity.
Within the board, some believed Mr. Pandit’s lack of foresight and planning contributed to the bank’s missed opportunity, the people close to Citigroup said.
Shares of Citigroup were up nearly 1 percent by midday on Tuesday.
Discussions to line up a ready successor to Mr. Pandit have been in the works at Citigroup over the last year, according to several people familiar with the matter. One leading candidate to succeed Mr. Pandit had been Jamie Forese, head of securities and banking. Inside the bank, however, Mr. Pandit had expressed his commitment to stay at the helm of the bank until it was on firmer footing.
During Mr. Pandit’s tenure, which began in December 2007, the bank struggled through enormous market upheaval and needed several rescue lines from the government. But it has slowly recovered, in large part by shedding big portions of its businesses. Among them is Smith Barney, the brokerage operation that is being absorbed by Morgan Stanley.
“Given the progress we have made in the last few years, I have concluded that now is the right time for someone else to take the helm at Citigroup,” Mr. Pandit said in a statement. “I could not be leaving the company in better hands.”
With his departure, just two men who ran Wall Street banks during the financial crisis remain in their posts: Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. Both firms rebounded from the upheaval much more quickly and strongly than Citigroup.
Mr. Pandit, an immigrant from India who quickly ascended the ranks of Morgan Stanley before turning to hedge funds, was long seen as an unusual choice to lead Citigroup. But the banking giant purchased Old Lane, his investment firm, and then tapped him in December 2007 to do what a succession of leaders could not: push the firm back to profitability.
Born of a string of acquisitions by Sanford I. Weill, Citigroup initially seemed like an imposing colossus on Wall Street, combining investment and consumer banking, hedge fund services and insurance. But the firm whose birth presaged the fall of decades-old banking regulations proved unwieldy to manage, with a labyrinthine bureaucracy and underperforming divisions.
Under Charles O. Prince III, Mr. Pandit’s predecessor, the firm announced more than $18 billion in write-downs because of souring investments in complex mortgage securities known as collateralized debt obligations.
When stepping down, Mr. Weill was very deliberate in choosing his successor. Later, he regretted, privately, that he had not spurred more competition before tapping Mr. Prince.
In an acknowledgment of the difficult task ahead, Mr. Pandit said that he would take a token $1 annual salary until the firm began earning profit again. But the untested chief executive struggled with turbulent markets, culminating in the financial crisis that left Citigroup in need of a $45 billion bailout from the government.
He quickly adopted a deferential tone to Congress and regulators, backing tougher banking rules and moving quickly to shed nonessential businesses like Smith Barney. His ultimate goal had been to transform Citigroup into a smaller bank that focused on safer investment banking and consumer and corporate lending.
Mr. Pandit first brought Citigroup back to profitability two years ago, and by the end of 2010 the government had cashed out its remaining investment in the firm, earning a $12 billion profit for taxpayers. That performance drew praise from many within the firm’s ranks: “The man deserves to be paid,” Richard D. Parsons, the bank’s then-chairman, told New York magazine that year.
The bank’s shareholders were less certain about that, still dissatisfied with a firm whose stock had fallen 89 percent since he took over. They vetoed a $15 million pay package for Mr. Pandit in April, in the first major rebuke against the chief of a major financial firm.
Often shareholders find themselves on the hook for millions of dollars in exit payments to executives with so-called golden parachutes, ironclad agreements that entitle them to big payouts on their way out the door. Yet neither Mr. Pandit nor Mr. Havens had employment agreements, according to regulatory filings reviewed for DealBook by Disclosure Matters, a company that specializes in analyzing corporate documents.
Other, more limited agreements with the men also lack the kinds of provisions that are often used to guarantee payouts for exiting executives. A “key employee” profit-sharing agreement with Mr. Pandit filed in May 2011 says he generally “shall not be entitled to any payments pursuant to the plan” if his employment terminates before May 2013,except in the case of death or disability. Similarly, option and stock grants made last year suggested that Mr. Pandit would forfeit most of those awards on departure.
The lack of an employment agreement does not necessarily mean Mr. Pandit is leaving empty-handed. Departing executives often receive special exit packages, negotiated at the time of departure or soon after; these sometimes are not disclosed for days or even weeks. But without such an agreement, Mr. Pandit is likely to have to give up 333,333 options and 240,732 shares awarded last year.
Citigroup did not respond to a request for comment on these disclosures.
As head of Citigroup’s business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Mr. Corbat represents what many on the board consider the bank’s new direction, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The bank has been working to focus its growth on international markets that are not riven by the same problems as the United States.
Also adding to Mr. Corbat’s desirability, he helped wind down some of the soured assets in Citi Holdings.
As news of the management upheaval spread throughout the ranks at Citigroup on Tuesday morning, some employees pointed to Mr. Corbat’s elevation to chief executive as a censure of Mr. Pandit’s leadership.
Mr. Corbat, in an internal memo to employees on Tuesday, said he would begin by immersing “myself in the businesses and review reporting structures.”
But some employees noted that Mr. Corbat had already indicated change ahead. In the memo, he said: “These assessments will result in some changes, and I will make sure to communicate these changes with you as decisions are made so that you are informed and updated.”
The bank has struggled to make up for lackluster revenue. In March, Citigroup was waylaid by a decision from the Federal Reserve to reject the bank’s proposal to buy back shares and increase its dividend.
Susanne Craig contributed reporting.
Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/pandit-steps-down-as-citis-chief/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Two major brokerage firms said on Friday afternoon that they had resumed sending client orders to the Knight Capital Group, in a potential boost of confidence for the beleaguered trading firm.
TD Ameritrade and Scottrade said separately that they were again routing trades to Knight, after having pulled their business from the firm on Thursday. Many of Wall Street’s biggest brokerage firms had withdrawn, unsure of the firm’s state after it disclosed a $440 million loss tied to a trading software glitch.
“After considerable review and discussion, we are resuming our order routing relationship with Knight,” Fred Tomczyk, TD Ameritrade’s chief executive, said in a statement. “Our priority has always been the interests of our clients, their trades and their assets. Knight is one of many order routing destinations for us and has long been a good and trusted partner.”
Whitney Ellis, a spokesman for Scottrade, said his firm had begun sending orders to Knight around 12:35 p.m. on Friday.
It is not clear whether other clients have returned as well. Earlier on Friday, representatives for Vanguard and E*Trade said that they had had not.
On Thursday, Knight had asked some of its clients to stop sending it orders, while it retested its systems. But on Friday, firm executives called other trading shops, assuring them that it had locked up financing to operate throughout the day and asking them to resume routing client orders.
The firm has contacted a number of potential buyers for at least some of its businesses, as it races to stabilize its finances through the weekend. Knight and its advisers have been soliciting potential suitors for various parts of its businesses, including rivals like Citadel and Virtu Financial, according to people briefed on the matter.
Shares in Knight were up by 62 percent as of midafternoon trading, at $4.15. They had plummeted 75 percent between Wednesday, when its trading software broke down, and Thursday, when it disclosed the $440 million loss.
Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/td-ameritrade-and-scottrade-resume-sending-orders-to-knight/?partner=rss&emc=rss
The quarterly results beat analysts’ expectations, and Deere shares rose nearly 4 percent on a down day on Wall Street.
The company said Wednesday that equipment sales were up 20 percent in the quarter. That included 14 percent sales growth in the United States and Canada, and 31 percent growth in the rest of the world outside those two countries.
The sales growth helped Deere generate net income of $670 million, or $1.62 a share, for the three months ended Oct. 31, up from $457 million, or $1.07 a share, a year ago.
Revenue grew 20 percent to $8.6 billion, from $7.2 billion a year ago. Both sales volume and equipment prices increased.
Analysts surveyed by FactSet expected earnings of $1.43 a share on revenue of $7.91 billion.
Deere said equipment sales would increase about 15 percent in the 2012 fiscal year and profit would grow to $3.2 billion, from $2.8 billion in the 2011 fiscal year.
The earnings statement from Deere, the world’s largest maker of agricultural equipment, offers an indication of how well farmers worldwide are doing. Deere said it expected farmers to have another good year in 2012 because the demand for agricultural commodities remained strong.
Deere said it projected that net American farm income would decline slightly to roughly $109.2 billion in 2012, from the estimated $115.7 billion in 2011.
To help meet the growing demand, Deere announced plans in 2011 to build new manufacturing plants in Brazil, China and India.
For Deere’s 2011 fiscal year, the company reported net income of $2.8 billion, or $6.63 a share. That is higher than the previous year’s $1.87 billion.
Its shares rose $2.80 to $74.72 on Wednesday.
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=5d66320a3d506f8d4f904a7d2bd5540e
In Room for Debate: If the sex abuse scandal shows football trumping morals, should the team keep playing?
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f6632c178e7ea4306b93f59e6f89e808
Cablevision Systems’ quarterly earnings widely missed Wall Street estimates, as the company dealt with a weak economy, high programming costs and competition from phone companies that offer television services. The company posted a profit of $39.3 million, down from $68.4 million a year earlier, though its revenue increased 8 percent, to $1.67 billion. Cablevision, which mainly serves the New York area and owns a newspaper and television networks in addition to its cable business, said it lost 19,000 video subscribers in the third quarter. The earnings raised questions among analysts about the company’s growth prospects, as it faces mounting costs and a shrinking user base. The company’s shares closed down 12.5 percent, to $15.14.
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9a57b171476bb2bf31f9d075e83f6e5d
Coaches can have a profound effect, for better or worse, on the lives of young people.
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=702f184cc1e4d34fa16ea5b7abba5b0b
“We absolutely need demands,” said Shawn Redden, 35, an earnest history teacher in the group. “Like Frederick Douglass said, ‘Power concedes nothing without a demand.’ ”
The influence and staying power of Occupy Wall Street are undeniable: similar movements have sprouted around the world, as the original group enters its fifth week in the financial district. Yet a frequent criticism of the protesters has been the absence of specific policy demands.
Mr. Redden and other demonstrators formed the Demands Working Group about a week and a half ago, hoping to identify specific actions they would formally ask local and federal governments to adopt. But the very nature of Occupy Wall Street has made that task difficult, in New York and elsewhere.
Although Occupy Seattle has a running tally of votes on its Web site — 395 votes to “nationalize the Federal Reserve,” 138 for “universal education” and 245 to “end corporate personhood,” for example — Mike Hines, a member of the group, said the list would soon be removed because the provisions had not been clearly explained and because some people were not capable of voting online.
“It feels like we’re all in a similar boat,” Mr. Hines said of other Occupy movements. “We all want to include as many voices as possible.”
In New York, the demands committee held a two-hour open forum last Monday, coming up with two major categories: jobs for all and civil rights. The team will continue to meet twice a week to develop a list of specific proposals, which it will then discuss with protesters and eventually take to the General Assembly, a nightly gathering of the hundreds of protesters in the park.
A two-thirds majority would have to approve each proposal, and any passionate opponent could call for the entire vote to be delayed.
The General Assembly has already adopted a “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City,” which includes a list of grievances against corporations and a call for others to join the group in peaceful assembly. To many protesters, that general statement is enough, and the open democracy of Zuccotti Park is the point of the movement.
“Demands are disempowering since they require someone else to respond,” said Gabriel Willow, a protester strolling past a sleeping-bag pod of young adults in the park last Monday. “It’s not like we couldn’t come up with any, but I don’t think people would vote for them.”
Although Monday’s open forum was meagerly attended, politically active members like Cecily McMillan and David Haack, who first proposed formulating demands in a pre-campout planning meeting in August, said they were ready to take action. Mr. Haack, who in 2009 tried to run for the White Plains City Council, admitted feeling disillusioned after the group struck down their proposal in August, but now he feels inspired by the movement’s “true democratic process,” even if it means slower progress going forward.
“Let’s give ourselves two weeks,” Ms. McMillan said about presenting provisions to the General Assembly. Ms. McMillan, 23, a New School graduate student, feels such dedication to the cause that she has contemplated taking a sabbatical from her studies — but she has begun to worry that the movement could become “a joke” without specific goals. Still, with the right demands, she said, more union members and diverse contingencies could join.
In Austin, Tex., participants agreed on four demands, including an end to corporate personhood and tax reform. One Austin activist, Lauren Walker, linked the movement’s goals directly to government officials.
“This is our time because we’re coming up to the 2012 elections,” she said, suggesting that protesters saw the presidential election as a “deadline” to draft revolutionary policy suggestions.
Elsewhere, Occupy Boston, Occupy D.C. and Occupy Philadelphia were among the many groups in the movement slowly formulating demands, though in each city, opposition has arisen from skeptical demonstrators.
In Boston, Meghann Sheridan wrote on the group’s Facebook page, “The process is the message.” In Baltimore, Cullen Nawalkowsky, a protester, said by phone that the point was a “public sphere not moderated by commodities or mainstream political discourse.” An Occupy Cleveland participant, Harrison Kalodimos, is even writing a statement about why demands are not the answer.
Joseph Schwartz, a political science professor and an Occupy Philadelphia participant, said he thought the movement’s “anarchist strain” discouraged a demand-making environment.
Whatever it is, New York’s small group of focused activists said they would not yield.
“If we don’t make demands, the political parties will make them for us,” a longtime protester, Eric Lerner, 64, said from his spot in the cluster last Monday. “We have to get it right this time.”
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c99f26fb6acff21dfe5e95e4aba26381
He’s been ridiculed right and left, but Room for Debate asks, is his “9-9-9” plan so far-fetched?
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4b3ecc655b134f05b17952fd0395424c