Archive for February, 2012

Business Digest | European finance chiefs offer reassurance on fiscal soundness

Leading finance chiefs sought to reassure anxious global business leaders on Friday that Europe is on track to solve its crippling debt crisis before it drags other economies down.

Europe’s top banker said investors, burned after trusting the region’s governments too much, now trust them too little.

The finance chiefs said the picture in Europe has changed over the past two months as the European Central Bank has loaned billions of euros to fragile banks.

It said indebted countries have pushed through convincing reforms and European Union leaders have come near to building a closer fiscal union that would make their common currency stronger.

Several also signaled Friday that Greece is close to clinching a crucial debt-reduction deal with private bondholders — a key element in Europe’s efforts to stem a two-year debt crisis that is causing ripples around the globe.

Altria 4Q profit falls 9 percent; CEO Michael Szymanczyk to leave

Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc. said Friday that its fourth-quarter profit fell about 9 percent on lease, legal and restructuring charges, even though higher prices and gains from its smokeless tobacco products helped bolster sales.

The owner of the nation’s biggest cigarette maker, Philip Morris USA, also announced that CEO Michael E. Szymanczyk will retire in May following the company’s annual shareholder meeting.

Altria’s board has selected Martin J. Barrington to replace him as CEO and chairman. David R. Beran will serve as president and chief operating officer.

The company also disclosed that it has an agreement with an affiliate of Fertin Pharma A/S to develop non-combustible nicotine-containing products.

Several other tobacco companies have announced similar initiatives to seek cigarette alternatives as demand declines.

Fitch, concerned with Europe#39;s leadership, downgrades 5 nations

Fitch Ratings downgraded the debt of Italy, Spain and three other countries that use the euro on Friday, as European leaders work on several fronts to contain the continent’s government-debt crisis.

The lower government-debt ratings for Italy, Spain, Belgium, Cyprus and Slovenia could make it more expensive for these countries to borrow.

Fitch said its decision was based on the deteriorating economic outlook in Europe.

It’s also concerned that Europe’s bailout fund is not large enough, and it believes that European leaders are not acting quickly or boldly enough to prevent the debt crisis from worsening.

The grim future of campaign finance

Its not even the general election season, and were already seeing the electoral process dominated by super PACs, funded with unlimited donations and protected by a paper-thin veil of independence.

The super PACs operating in the GOP primary have managed to delay disclosing their donors until next month, but the identities of who funded these groups will be public. Groups in a different category those that dont ever disclose donors havent started operating in any prominent way, but you can be sure they will in the fall.

Ive recently explored how we got to this point. But what about the prospects for reform of a system that so many are disillusioned with?

To learn about whats going on, I spoke to Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of Democracy 21, who has been working on campaign finance issues for more than three decades.

Huffington Post is reporting that a campaign finance bill is in the works in Congress – something similar to the DISCLOSE Act of 2010 and that you worked on the bill. What can we expect from this effort by the Democrats?

It is designed to solve a series of problems. First of all, we had more than $135 million in secret contributions injected into the 2010 congressional races through tax-exempt groups that don’t disclose their donors. These are the 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and the 501(c)(6) business associations. This legislation, like the DISCLOSE Act, will ensure that donors giving money to groups that are spending it to influence elections are disclosed.

Second, we’ve had a serious problem with disclosure of super PACs in this election. From July 1 of last year to date, we’ve had no disclosure of the donors financing the super PACs and will not get any information until early February. That means we’ve had a number of very important primary and caucus contests with voters having no idea who is putting up millions of dollars that are spent to influence their votes. All of those disclosures will come in early February, after critical contests are already over. The legislation will fix the problems that have been created by untimely disclosure by super PACs in the 2012 presidential primary elections.

Third, it will require candidate-specific super PACs to have an official take responsibility for their ads and require the ads to list the top donors to the super PAC.

With the DISCLOSE Act in 2010, it passed the House and fell one vote short of overcoming a filibuster in the Senate. What are the prospects for this new bill once it gets introduced?

The legislation this time will only have disclosure provisions and will not include a number of the nondisclosure provisions that were in the bill in the last Congress and that drew various arguments by opponents who were in fact opposed to disclosure. So this is a powerful bill that is very hard to oppose on any kind of merit argument.  It is focused only on disclosure, and it solves serious problems with disclosure by nonprofit groups and by super PACs which are playing such a major role in the elections. Its going to be very hard to come up with arguments for voting against the bill. Thats not going to alone decide the battle, but it will focus the issue on basically one proposition: Should contributions being spent to influence elections be kept secret from the voters? Or do voters have a public right to know who is funding ads being run to influence their votes? We got a whole lot of arguments from opponents last time that didnt address that basic question and had nothing to do with disclosure.

Last time, all the Democrats in the Senate voted to break a filibuster but we couldnt get any Republicans. Democracy 21 and a number of other reform groups are going to work very hard to convince Republicans to vote for the new disclosure bill this time. Republicans traditionally have supported disclosure legislation, up until 2010 when politics took over. Im not predicting whats going to happen here, except to say that we have a stronger bill and a different dynamic this year with super PACs and the problems they have created front and center in the publics mind.

The Senate is 53-47 right now, so youll need all the Democrats plus seven Republicans to get to the 60 vote threshold?

Yeah. And if it doesnt pass this year, by the end of this year we are going to have a huge amount of secret money in our elections. And we will pursue this in the next Congress, when it will be even harder to oppose.

So lets say this disclosure bill passes and becomes law, it really wont stop the flow of money from the super-rich into the system?

No, it doesnt. We are currently drafting legislation that would shut down the candidate-specific super PACs. By that I mean, the super PACs that are out there each focusing on one candidate, that are being run by surrogates of that candidate, and that are absurdly claiming to be PACs making independent expenditures.

How can those be shut down in the context of the Supreme Court rulings we have, including Citizens United?

The Supreme Court basically said that in order for this kind of unlimited money to be used to make campaign expenditures, the groups making them must be independent from the candidate. Citizens United did not in any way define independence. The Supreme Court in the past has used very broad language to define independent that the groups must be totally independent, fully independent, not based on a wink and a nod from a candidate. The statutory language here about what constitutes coordination is broad, but the FEC has adopted a regulation that greatly narrows it. So we believe that you can define the meaning of independent in ways that can make clear that these candidate-specific super PACs, run by associates of the candidates, are not independent and therefore do not qualify to make these expenditures.

If that passed, though, wouldnt that just bring us back to a 2004 situation, where, for example, the Swift Boat group was getting unlimited donations from individuals to go after John Kerry in TV ads?

Well, we filed complaints against the Swift Boats group and other groups in 2004, and the Federal Election Commission at that time found that they had operated illegally in the presidential campaign and fined them. The FEC findings of illegality would have prevented similar behavior in the future if we hadnt run into the Supreme Court. However, even with the legislation we are drafting we still will have problems with super PACs that are not tied to specific candidates.

Beyond the legislation youre thinking about drafting, is there some kind of long-term fix you have in mind? A robust public financing system perhaps?

Yes, also on our long-term agenda is empowering citizens to make small donations whose value will be multiplied by public funds. We think the longer term solution here is to provide a counterbalance to all of this influence money sloshing around in the system by literally overwhelming the system with small donations from citizens. In order to do that, we need to figure out how to master the power of the Internet in giving and raising small donations, and we have to provide incentives for these contributions, such as a 5-to-1 match for every contribution up to $200. The bottom line is, we need to be in a situation where candidates have an alternative way of financing their campaigns so they do not end up obligated to and dependent on influence-seeking money.

On Point | Nothing to hide, finance minister says

Newfoundland and Labradors finance minister insists the governing Tories have disclosed what the public needs to know about multi-billion-dollar spending, although Tom Marshall suggests a court challenge may be needed before more documents are unearthed.

Speaking to On Point with David Cochrane, Marshall rejected Auditor General Wayne Loveys contention that he has been unfairly blocked from critical information about $5 billion in infrastructure spending.

Loveys said in his report this week that government is denying his office access to documentation that has been revealed before.

The document which reflects cabinet deliberations — theyve always been held in confidence, said Marshall, who reiterated governments position that the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act makes it illegal to turn over some documents that Loveys wanted to read.

The ATIPP legislation forbids — it strictly forbids — that information being released, Marshall said.

However, Marshall said a difference in interpretation seemed to be involved with the Auditor Generals request for specific materials from specific departments — and that that difference could be resolved at the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

People will always disagree, Marshall said. People of good will can have differences of opinion on what a section says, and thats why we have courts.

In the shows second segment, Cochrane interviews Liberal Leader Dwight Ball and NDP Leader Lorraine Michael about the Auditor Generals report and what Michael describes as a veil of secrecy that is shrouding the work of government.

The On Point insiders panel debates whether the government has become too secretive, as well as troubles with the newsprint industry.

Participating this week are PC MHA David Brazil, Liberal Yvonne Jones and New Democrat Dale Kirby.

Wealthy couple finance super PAC for Gingrich

(CBS News)

A political action committee backing Newt Gingrich made an enormous advertising buy Wednesday in Florida — $6 million. Its one of those cases of the unlimited money that can now be donated to a so-called super PAC.

Sheldon and Miriam Adelson are among the richest couples in the world with a fortune Forbes estimated at $23 billion, and theyre bankrolling the super PAC that supports Gingrich.

Adelson owns a global network of hotels and casinos, his wife is an Israeli-born physician. Their combined gift of $10 million to the super PAC supporting Gingrich is keeping his anti-Romney message on TV in Florida.

Adelson made billions on his risky decision to implode the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas and replace it with the state-of-the-art Venetian Casino and Convention Center. He has used his fortune to benefit several hospitals, charities and politicians in Israel. The Adelsons gave a record $25 million to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Center in Jerusalem, and are long-time supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In 1995, friends say Adelson and then-House Speaker Gingrich first bonded over their shared view of Israel. Adelson was asking Congress to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a move considered highly inflammatory by Palestinians, who also claim the holy city as their capital, and Arabs worldwide. Three presidents have called the move harmful for peace prospects, but its the first thing Gingrich says hed do as president.

There will be an executive order about two hours after the inaugural address. We will send the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as of that day, he once said.

Gingrich has also played down the Palestinian claim to statehood by dismissing their legitimacy as a people.

Weve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, he said on the Jewish Channel.

A close friend of Adelsons told CBS News that the billionaire loved Gingrichs remark.

Gingrich pulls ad after complaint from Rubio
Gingrich: Romney in Swiss bank accounts world
Gingrich, Romney in dead heat in new Florida poll

But is his $10 million gift a form of payment for Gingrichs world view? Adelson declined CBS News request for an interview. But in a statement, he described his motivation as loyalty, saying he and his wife hold our friendship with (Gingrich) very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy.

George Harris, a former employee of Adelsons who is now a Gingrich finance director, said Adelson donates his money with no strings attached.

I can promise you something: Mr. Adelson doesnt ask anybody for anything, he said. I dont believe theres any quid pro quo for this money at all.

But critics and public interest groups argue that $10 million buys you influence, period. The Adelsons gift, for example, has already purchased seven times more ad time in Florida than the entire Gingrich campaign. This is the leading example of how these unrestricted super PACs are changing the race for the White House.

Liam Halligan: At last, a politician who dares to admit that we need ‘full …

All those non-performing loans, and toxic debts, many of them linked to the
housing sector, havent gone away. We dont know their precise scale, of
course, because the banks still wont publish full sets of accounts,
including their off balance sheet vehicles. And, disgracefully,
governments and regulators wont force them.

So banks are petrified of lending to each other, as they know very little
about each others solvency. Investors, too, are worried about
recapitalising banks, or even holding bank shares in most cases, as they
dont know what theyre buying.

The result is that inter-bank lending the wholesale market for loans has
seized up. This, in turn, has led to a drought of finance for solvent
households and firms. So, investment suffers, housing markets suffer, and
economic life stagnates. With the credit channel blocked, the
wheels of Western finance have stopped turning and commercial stasis has
ensued.

Thats why growth is so slow, with some countries now re-entering recession
because insolvent banks, pretending theyre still viable, are hoarding cash
in a desperate bid to survive.

Meanwhile, legitimate demands for credit, not least from firms wanting to
maintain or expand their operations, are denied or granted only at usurious
rates. Ergo, the West isnt recovering and unemployment is rising and the
core of the problem is a group of opaque, moribund banks.

Attempts to keep these banks afloat, extending the lives of what are
commercially dead institutions, have hammered sovereign balance
sheets.

Several of the most advanced nations on Earth are now only keeping their
government debt markets afloat by ordering central banks to print
electronic credits, then buying back blocks of their own paper.

During the past two decades, Western governments have borrowed and spent
irresponsibly. Cleaning-up after the banks, though, has pushed several
financially stable nations to the brink of insolvency and, if were honest,
beyond.

In western Europe, of course, this evil brew is even more ghastly given the
policy incoherence, and conflicting incentives, imposed by the economic
madness that is the euro. Breaking this deadlock and restoring growth and
stability isnt about big bazookas or quantitative easing.
These solutions merely buy time, albeit at untold cost to our
children and grandchildren.

Above all, though, QE and the other special measures have allowed
badly-run banks to keep pretending they can avoid facing-up to their massive
investment errors, while allowing politicians to dodge the really tough
decisions.

Given the powerful interests it serves, no wonder QE is set to continue. Bank
transparency genuine transparency, such as the one FDR imposed to
break the Great Depression, or as Sweden used to escape its banking mess in
the 1990s has been the third rail of the Wests response
to subprime.

Many politicians know its ultimately needed, but theyve refrained from
discussing it for fear of enduring an almighty shock.

The power of the banking lobby, its campaign dollars, and concerns about being
seen to provoke a crash, have meant our leaders keep avoiding the central
issue that is that many of our banks are insolvent and need to write off
their losses and close. Were that to happen, powerful financiers would look
stupid. Having assumed their crazy schemes had implicit government backing,
they would end up losing cash.

Yet upheaval is needed, to purge a rotten system and let commerce start anew.
Confessions need to be forced and, if were serious, significant criminal
behaviour needs to see the light of day.

Full disclosure must happen, if were to free ourselves from this
torpor and get the Western world back on an even financial keel. Were
just so overleveraged, said Romney, during a routine campaign stop in
Florida. Theres so much debt in our society, and some of the
institutions that hold it arent willing to write it off and say they made a
mistake … and that we need to write those losses down and start over.

They keep on trying to harangue and pretend what they have on their
books is still what its worth, Romney continued. The banks are
scared to death that if they write all these loans off, theyre going to go
broke hellip; So they just pretend all of this is going to get paid someday so
they dont have to write it off and potentially go out of business hellip; This is
now cascading through our system and in some respects government are trying
to just hold things in place, hoping things get better …

My own view, Romney concluded, is that you recognise the
distress, you take the loss and let people reset. Banks that are prudent
will be able to restart, those that arent will go out of business.

I dont particularly want Mitt Romney to be President. Were he to win the
White House, he may even backtrack on these Florida words. Yet this is a man
with perhaps more financial acumen than anyone who has ever got close to
becoming President. And in arguing for full disclosure, Romney
is totally correct. He is also far from alone. A growing number of policy
experts now talk along these lines.

Americas SEC, in fact, just issued guidance that US banks should
provide detailed information about their European debt exposure
so investors can make more informed decisions about which banks should
survive.

Guidance, though, isnt a requirement, more an attempt by
compromised regulators to fend-off an idea whose time has come.

Last week saw much backslapping at Davos, as eurozone politicians, and their
banking chums, pushed Germany closer to full-scale money-printing.
Predictably, banking stocks rallied. The bankers should know, though, that
the logic of full disclosure is irresistible, the historic
evidence clear. Romneys outburst may have been unconscious, perhaps even
unintended. But he has tipped the first political domino in a process that
will ultimately prevail.

Swiss have not yet decided to up IMF funding: finance minister

ZURICH (Reuters) – Switzerland has not yet made a decision on whether to enlarge its participation in augmenting the International Monetary Funds resources, the finance ministry said on Saturday.

Swiss Finance Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf met with IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Switzerland already boosted its support to the International Monetary Fund last year, a move that proved highly contentious among some right-of-centre politicians.

There have been rumors the IMF has of late asked Switzerland for additional support as worries about peripheral sovereign debts continue to plague the euro zone. Swiss officials, however, have said no concrete requests for further aid have been received.

Widmer-Schlumpf pointed out that Switzerland had not yet made a decision on whether to participate in the augmentation of the IMFs resources and that the country would have to attach conditions to any participation, the finance ministry said in a statement.

Moreover, she stressed that it will be crucial for Switzerland that non-G20 members of the IMF are also involved as appropriate in all stages of the solution-finding process, it also said.

Also on Saturday, economy minister Johann Schneider-Ammann said Switzerland was not about to increase its funding to the IMF. [ID:nL5E8CS036]

(Reporting by Catherine Bosley)

Personal Finance: Bank Transfer Day saw 600000 switch

By Mitch Lipka

NEW YORK |
Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:12pm EST