Friday, 23 November 2012

FISCAL CLIFF - USA




Nov. 21, 2012, 12:55 p.m. EST 10 people who led us to the ‘fiscal cliff’ Commentary: From Laffer to Obama, they fed our greed and guilt By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — With our political leaders locked in a fiscal struggle that threatens to throw the economy off a so-called cliff and into recession, you might be wondering how we got to this place.
Remember that this supposed fiscal cliff is the direct result of two contradictory impulses in American life: Greed and guilt. Greed for low taxes, a strong military, a strong safety net and lots of government spending for everyone. And guilt that we weren’t paying our way. Read “Stop calling it a ‘fiscal cliff’”
All of us (or almost all) had a role in this melodrama, either benefiting from the spending or from the lower tax rates. Despite our culpability, it took strong national leaders to foster the heady mix of greed and guilt that brought us to this spot.
Here are the 10 people most responsible for bringing us to the edge of the fiscal cliff:

 

Arthur Laffer. Laffer was the economist who proved the existence of the free lunch. His Laffer Curve showed, in theory, that cutting tax rates would actually increase tax revenue. He gave intellectual cover to those conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to be seen as contributing to a big deficit. He gave them a guilt-free way to cut revenue.
There’s only one problem: Laffer’s ideas didn’t pan out in practice: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Tax cuts are a major cause of our $16 trillion national debt.
Pete Peterson. If there’s one person who we can blame for making us feel guilty about the federal deficit, it’s Peterson, a hedge-fund billionaire who was a cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration. Peterson founded, funded or supported most of the institutions in Washington devoted to publicizing the problem of the deficit, including the Concord Coalition, the Peterson Foundation, The Fiscal Times, and the anti-deficit documentary “I.O.U.S.A.”
Without Peterson’s billions and the guilt it bought, the deficit would be a fringe issue.
Bill Clinton. President Clinton made budget surpluses look easy. The budget was in the black the last four years of his administration. What’s worse, he made surpluses look like a sure thing.
Clinton’s surpluses were partly the result of Washington going on a serious budget diet, with higher taxes paired with moderation in spending. But it was the booming economy — and higher taxes on capital income — that turned the modest deficits of the early Clinton years into surpluses.
By the time Clinton left office, politicians were beginning to talk about perpetual surpluses, in exactly the same way that hucksters on Wall Street were talking about a perpetual bull market. And with exactly the same outcome.
Alan Greenspan. Greenspan was a high priest of both guilt and greed. He had always warned Congress about the dangers of the deficits, but his biggest failure as Federal Reserve chairman was the day in 2001 he told Congress that the worst thing it could do was pay down the debt because that would destroy the Treasury market and the Fed’s power to control the economy.
That was the day he endorsed the Bush tax cuts. The Maestro’s endorsement gave intellectual cover to the conservatives who wanted to cut taxes, but who didn’t want to feel guilty.
Greenspan also catered to our greedy side as a serial bubble-blower. He inflated the housing bubble in the 2000s by keeping interest rates low and by refusing to regulate the shadow banking system.
George W. Bush . No one is more responsible for racking up our debt than Bush. He campaigned in 2000 promising to cut taxes in order to avoid paying down the national debt. And when the recession of 2001 arrived, he said tax cuts would revive the economy. And when the economy didn’t revive, he cut taxes some more. Tax cuts for all occasions. And it was all guilt-free
Dick Cheney. While Bush was busy cutting taxes, Cheney was busy planning the war on terror. For the first time in our history, we sent our military into battle without raising taxes at home to help pay for it. It added trillions to the debt.

David Lereah. Lereah was the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors and was perhaps the most enthusiastic and public cheerleader for the housing bubble. Even after the bubble began to deflate, Lereah still insisted that real-estate investments would never lose money.
Of course, Lereah didn’t cause the bubble all by himself, but he does embody the greed that engulfed the real estate industry, the Wall Street banks that profited from it, and the homeowners who took on more debt than they could ever hope to repay.
Grover Norquist. As the head of a powerful lobbying and campaign-finance organization, Norquist forced almost every Republican officeholder to sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. If anyone declined to sign or dared to violate the pledge, Norquist would back a primary challenger. The threat worked.
The Norquist pledge blocked any possibility of a budget deal between Democrats and Republicans over the past two years. Democrats insisted that any plan to balance the budget must include more revenue as well as spending cuts, but Republicans held solid against any tax increase.
There are signs that Norquist could be losing his hold on the party. Several Republicans won elections this year without signing his pledge, and several incumbents have said they don’t feel bound by the pledge any more.
Barack Obama. Obama may be the perfect representative of our age, because he encapsulates our national schizophrenia over the budget. He honors both the greed and the guilt. He presided over the largest deficits in history, including a large fiscal stimulus, bailouts of the auto industry, and an expansion of the safety net.
But Obama also lectures us about the need for the government to tighten its belt, even during a recession. He wants to raise taxes, if only on a few, and he’s expressed willingness to cut into the great middle-class entitlements. It was Obama’s administration that first suggested the bargain in 2011 that created the fiscal cliff.
John Boehner. The House speaker is trapped in Grover Norquist’s world. He’s a pragmatic legislator who accepts that the government needs more revenue, but his caucus in the House doesn’t agree. In the summer of 2011, Boehner nearly forced the nation to default on its debt because he couldn’t deliver the votes necessary to raise taxes.
In the end, Boehner was forced to punt the problem down the road. Today’s fiscal cliff showdown is the result of Boehner’s inability to lead the House Republicans to a deal.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-people-who-led-us-to-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-11-21?pagenumber=5

Tuesday, 20 November 2012

ONE MORE INSIDER TRADING STORY

A former portfolio manager for Steven A. Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors LP was charged with what U.S. prosecutors called a record-setting insider-trading scheme that netted as much as $276 million for the hedge fund.

Mathew Martoma, 38, traded on inside tips about clinical trials of bapineuzumab, a drug intended to treat Alzheimer’s disease, prosecutors in the office of Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a criminal complaint unsealed today. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Martoma, his former hedge fund and the doctor who allegedly passed him the tips.Martoma allegedly advised Cohen to sell shares of Wyeth LLC (PFE) and Elan Corp. (ELN), the companies that were developing the drug, before bad news about its performance was announced. Cohen’s firm sold its Elan (ELN) and Wyeth holdings to avoid losses and profited from short positions in the stocks, prosecutors said.“Mathew Martoma and his hedge fund benefitted from what might be the most lucrative inside tip of all time,” Bharara said at a press conference today. “This is certainly the most lucrative insider-trading scheme ever charged.”Martoma is the sixth current or former SAC employee implicated in alleged insider trading by U.S. prosecutors. He’s charged with conspiracy and two counts of securities fraud, a crime that carries a maximum 20-year prison term.While the SEC and prosecutors don’t say whether Cohen knew Martoma’s advice was based on illegal tips, they do allege that Martoma discussed the Elan investments with the hedge fund’s owner before the drug’s test results were out. Cohen wasn't charged or sued over the matter.

Health-Care Tips

More than 80 people have been sued by regulators or charged by prosecutors since 2008 for passing or getting inside tips about pharmaceutical, biotechnology or other health-care stocks.Martoma worked as a portfolio manager for CR Intrinsic Investors in Stamford, Connecticut, a unit of SAC Capital, according to the SEC. The agency’s suit names as defendants Martoma, CR Intrinsic and Dr. Sid Gilman, a University of Michigan neurologist. Gilman wasn’t charged criminally.
“Mathew Martoma was an exceptional portfolio manager who succeeded through hard work and the dogged pursuit of information in the public domain,” his lawyer, Charles Stillman, said in an e-mailed statement. “What happened today is only the beginning of a process that we are confident will lead to Mr. Martoma’s full exoneration.”Billionaire Cohen, 56, started SAC Capital in 1992. His hedge fund manages $14 billion. He has been deposed by SEC investigators about trades made close to news such as mergers and earnings that generated profits for his fund, a person familiar with the matter said in June. The person asked not to be identified because the investigation wasn’t public.“Mr. Cohen and SAC are confident that they have acted appropriately and will continue to cooperate with the government’s inquiry,” Jonathan Gasthalter, a company spokesman, said today in an e-mailed statement.
Martoma was arrested at his home in Boca RatonFlorida, at 6:30 a.m. today, said Peter Donald, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York. He appeared before U.S. Magistrate David Brannon in West Palm Beach and was released on $5 million bond secured by two family members, said Mary Delsener, a spokeswoman for Bharara’s office. Martoma is scheduled to be in federal court in Manhattan on Nov. 26, Bharara said.

‘Manager A’

The SEC claimed Martoma used Gilman’s illegal tips to trade for CR Intrinsic as well as for “hedge fund portfolios managed by an affiliated investment adviser” and controlled by an unidentified “Portfolio Manager A.” That manager was Cohen, according to a person familiar with the matter.In the criminal complaint, prosecutors said Martoma, who specialized in health-care stocks, recommended to the “hedge fund owner” at his firm that he sell Elan and Wyeth shares before the drug-trial results were disclosed publicly. Cohen is the owner of SAC.Gilman, 80, is a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan Medical School. He served as chairman of the safety monitoring committee overseeing the bapineuzumab trial, the SEC said. The doctor has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with prosecutors.“He is cooperating with the SEC and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Marc Mukasey, Gilman’s lawyer, said. “We expect to settle with the SEC in short order.”The doctor was a consultant for an expert-networking firm based in Manhattan and consulted with Martoma from mid-2006 to July 2008, according to the government.

Gerson Lehrman

Gilman worked for Gerson Lehrman Group’s Scientific Advisory Board starting in 2002, according to a 2011 curriculum vitae posted online by the University of Michigan.Loren Riegelhaupt, a spokesman for the New York-based expert-network firm, declined to comment on the case. Bloomberg LP, the owner of Bloomberg News, has an agreement to offer its clients access to Gerson Lehrman consultants.Over the course of about 42 consultations, Martoma persuaded the doctor to talk about his work on the drug trial, Bharara said.The doctor passed along the generally positive safety data about the trial, according to the criminal complaint, which doesn’t identify the neurologist by name. The SEC’s complaint names Gilman as Martoma’s source.

Elan, Wyeth

Relying on the safety data, Martoma allegedly bought shares of Elan and Wyeth for his portfolio. Cohen also bought Elan and Wyeth, based on Martoma’s recommendation, prosecutors said. By the end of June 2008, SAC held about $700 million in the two companies’ stocks.“The hedge fund built up over time a massive position in Elan and Wyeth stock. The hedge fund built up this position, even though it was vocally opposed by several others at the hedge fund who were worried about the risk of that investment,” Bharara said. “Martoma was the only person at the hedge fund who was recommending establishing such a large position in Elan and Wyeth based on that drug.”In mid-July 2008, Gilman received secret data showing that bapineuzumab failed to halt progression of Alzheimer’s in patients in the clinical test, the U.S. said. The doctor e- mailed Martoma a 24-page PowerPoint presentation detailing the results, which he was scheduled to present at a medical conference on July 29, according to the U.S.“That is when Martoma, according to the complaint, had to do a spectacular about-face, because he understood that with these negative results looming, the hedge fund’s massive $700 million stake had become a terrible bet,” Bharara said. “Overnight, Martoma went from bull to bear as he tried to dig his hedge fund out of a massive hole.”

‘It’s Important’

Prosecutors said that on July 20 Martoma e-mailed Cohen to ask, “Is there a good time to catch up with you this morning? It’s important.” The two later talked for about 20 minutes, according to the complaint.After that conversation, SAC allegedly sold all its Elan shares and shorted the stock in a little more than a week. SAC also liquidated most of its Wyeth stock and took short positions, the U.S. said.During that time, SAC’s Elan trades accounted for more than one-fifth of its trading volume, Bharara said.On July 27, an unidentified “Senior Trader” at Martoma’s company e-mailed Cohen about the week’s trading activity, according to prosecutors.

Dark Pools

The e-mail said that the fund “executed a sale of over 10.5 million ELN” for four internal hedge fund accounts. The sales were carried out “quietly and effectively” over four days through dark pools and other means, and booked into accounts that had “very limited access,” according to the e- mail cited in the criminal complaint.After the results became public, Wyeth and Elan shares plummeted. Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer Inc., fell the most in almost six years on the news. Elan dropped the most in three years.Prosecutors said Martoma was paid a bonus of $9.38 million in January 2009, based largely on the hedge fund’s profit from the Wyeth and Elan trades.Martoma lost money in the next two years and was fired after another identified employee said in a May 2010 e-mail that he was a “one-trick pony with Elan,” according to the government.

SAC Managers

At least five other current or former SAC portfolio managers or analysts have been implicated ininsider trading, including three charged criminally by federal prosecutors in New York, including two former portfolio managers Noah Freeman and Donald Longueuil and analyst Jon Horvath.
Michael Steinberg, a portfolio manager at SAC’s Sigma Capital Management unit, has been described by federal prosecutors as an “unindicted co-conspirator” of Horvath, a former analyst he supervised who pleaded guilty to receiving and passing inside information. Longueuil, who worked for SAC Capital’s CR Intrinsic in New York from July 2008 to July 2010, was accused of giving information to Freeman, his friend.In April 2011, former SAC analyst Jonathan Hollander agreed to settle SEC allegations that he traded on inside information about a pending takeover of the Albertson’s LLC grocery chain.
The U.S., by spelling out the evidence against Martoma in the complaint filed yesterday, may be seeking to persuade him to assist in a probe of others at SAC, said Andrew Frisch, a defense attorney in New York and former federal prosecutor.“That they’re proceeding by a complaint, as opposed to an indictment, often means the government wants to convince the defendant of the wisdom of cooperation,” Frisch, who isn’t involved in the case, said in an interview. “Cooperation is always a possibility for a defendant, but it’s a question of whether he has information.”The criminal case is U.S. v. Martoma, 12-MAG-2985; and the civil case is SEC v. CR Intrinsic Investors LLC, 12-8466, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in New York at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net; Patricia Hurtado in New York at pathurtado@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-20/u-s-charges-mathew-martoma-in-insider-trading-scheme.html

Monday, 19 November 2012

Ponty Chadha: Rags-to-Riches story

Ponty Chadha: Snack seller to liquor badshahLUCKNOW: From selling snacks outside a country liquor shop in Adarsh Nagar area of Moradabad in early 60s to becoming an undisputed booze baron of Uttar Pradesh, Gurdeep Singh Chadha's transition to Ponty Chadha, the owner of a Rs 6,000 crore empire, is a typical rags-to-riches story.

Ponty's death in a shootout at their Chattarpur (near Mehrauli in Delhi) farm house on Saturday in which his brother Hardeep was also killed, will perhaps end up as an isolated case that is sure to leave its impact on government policies in Uttar Pradesh and beyond. Ponty was among a few who was as close to Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) supremo Mayawati as he was toSamajwadi Party (SP) president Mulayam Singh Yadav. Known for keeping a low public profile, Chadha was rarely in news for anything other than his business deals. It was this phantom-like quality that intrigued media the most. He would visit UP chief minister at Lucknow at 6 am and would be fire fighting business deals at his 10 acre farmhouse in Chattarpur (Delhi) and reading religious before breakfast two hours later. Though he was often seen dressed in Armani designers but was also equally comfortable wearing casuals particularly at home.

People say it was Ponty's nack to work the system to his advantage that brought him the business that he owned. The urge to make it big was so strong that the disability in both hands, which were a result of suffering from electric shock while flying kites as a child, could not hold him back from realizing his dreams.

Chadha took his first big leap during the regime of Mulayam Singh Yadav as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh in 2007. As CM, Mulayam inaugurated his Wave mallcum-multiplex in Lucknow. But Chadha's empire saw a exponential growth after Mayawati handed over liquor licences to him in 2009 which gave him the monopoly over the liquor trade in the state.

The guest list for the marriage of Ponty's daughter Harleen to Harmann in February this year itself speaks of the connections that he had with the political bigwigs in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Punjab and Maharashtra and Delhi as well. Right from the Akali Dal's Sukhbir Badal and Congressman Amarinder Singhfrom Punjab to former Haryana chief minister Om Prakash Chautala, Samajwadi Party leader Ramgopal Yadav, BSP ex-MP Akbar Ahmad Dumpy and Delhi minister AS Lovely were present to bless the newly weds.
Industrialist Vijay Mallya and businessman Suresh Nanda also rubbed shoulders with the 2,000-odd guests at their farmhouse in Chhattarpur where Ponty and his brother fell to bullets on Saturday. Both Mayawati and Mulayam however were concipicuous by their absence.

Just a few days before that income-tax sleuths had raided his establishments across UP, Delhi and NCR. although the raids couldn't yield much, his connections in the right places ensured that the finance ministryreplaced SS Rana with Madhavan Nair as member investigation in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) shortly after the much publicized "search-and-survey". It is believed that it was the controversy over Chadha's companies being allocated a number of hydro power projects in Uttarakhand that added to the eventual ouster of Pokhriyal as CM.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/ponty-chadha-snack-seller-to-liquor-badshah/articleshow/17263995.cms

Sunday, 18 November 2012

Anand Jain's realty funds irk investors

Low returns on Anand Jain's realty funds irk investors
Management asked for reasons state of sector blamed
Dev Chatterjee / Mumbai Nov 19, 2012, 00:58 IST
Investors of Jai Corp’s two realty funds — Urban Infrastructure Opportunities Fund (UIOF) and Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (UIREF) — are irked over low returns. The funds have invested in a slew of real estate projects across India over the past six years. Some investors have met the top management, led by Jai CorpChairman Anand Jain, seeking better returns for the funds.
Some of the marquee investors in the domestic fund included Life Insurance Corporation, State Bank of India, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank. Investors say they are worried as the performances of both funds have failed to match the projections made when launched. “We met Jain in Mumbai, asking a lot of questions on the performance. We were told the funds would need more time for giving positive returns,” an investor told Business Standard.
Email questionnaires to Anand Jain on Friday and Saturday did not elicit any response. Jain was unavailable for comments in spite of several text messages and telephone calls. But an insider told Business Standard that due to high interest rates, high debt and a slowdown in the economy, many real estate projects are stuck and are unable to get completed in time.
The company source said the company bought back units worth Rs 322 crore from many investors who wanted to exit the fund. In fact, achieving exits have been difficult for the entire private equity (PE) real estate segment, with about only 20 per cent of investments getting exits till now, the source said. In the current financial year, the funds would continue to explore exits from the portfolio investments and execution of the projects.
In 2006, Jain had launched UIOF with a tenure of seven years. The funds raised close to Rs 2,434-crore and invested in 34 special purpose vehicles in 15 cities in India. A year later, Jain also launched UIREF, an offshore fund of $295 million. The fund with eight-year-old tenure raised funds from international investors in the high-risk, high-return Indian realty sector.
Anand Jain is a close friend of Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani and is also an investor in a special economic zone project in Maharashtra with his listed company, Jai Corp. Jain does not hold any position in Reliance Industries.
Experts say early PE investors in the real estate sector are now feeling the heat. A Jones Lang LaSalle report said investments in real estate by funds are marred by lack of transparency and information asymmetry. “PE players used to look towards primarily high-return, due to lack of means and precedence to detail the risk factor in India. This underestimation of risk and subsequent overheating of the real estate sector have made them revert to stringent risk profiling tests,” the report said.
Adding: “Early investors having been saddled with delayed project executions and low demand in major Indian cities, funds are now undertaking a more detailed analysis of risks.”
In 2009, the income tax department had investigated Jai Corp and the investments made by the two funds in real estate projects in various tier-II cities. The matter is pending.
http://www.businessstandard.com/india/news/low-returnsanand-jain039s-realty-funds-irk-investors/492935/

Thursday, 8 November 2012

Emotional Quotient - Leadership Success.....

Shyamal Majumdar: Are you emotionally intelligent?
Make no mistake, EQ is central to success in leadership and not just a touchy-feely trend
Shyamal Majumdar / Mumbai Nov 09, 2012, 00:12 IST

The All India Council for Technical Education has made a good beginning by deciding to test the emotional quotient (EQ) of aspiring management graduates in the Common Management Admission Test that it conducts every year for 3,700 management institutions (excluding the IIMs) in the country. For, every single reputed MBA (Master of Business Administration) institute all over the world has been testing EQ of candidates for ages.
To understand what testing EQ is about, take a look at some sample questions (taken from one of the past test papers for management trainees in a multinational company):
“Please be honest to yourself and mark in the appropriate box whether the following descriptions about you are true or false: 1) I am not satisfied with my work unless someone praises it; 2) I avoid fights, expressing my opinion, or doing what I want for fear that I will upset others or lose their love/friendship; 3) When I need to do something difficult or unpleasant, I find it hard to motivate myself to get started”.

There are no right or wrong answers; you just have to tick mark whether they are true or false.
It’s easy to dismiss such tests as a gimmick and treat EQ as a touchy-feely trend that doesn’t tell you anything worthwhile. But that would be wrong becauseemotional intelligence (EI) is the structure that supports effective responses to events, people, and change as you go up the professional ladder. The EQ score gives an idea about whether you already have it in you to be in a future leadership role or can be trained to have it. A Time magazine article put it more effectively: IQ (intelligence quotient) gets you hired, but EQ gets you promoted.
This could well be true, as many companies are finding out. For example, research by the Carnegie Institute of Technology showed that 85 per cent of your financial success is due to skills in human engineering, your personality and ability to communicate, negotiate, and lead. And, just 15 per cent is due to technical knowledge. HR consultancy Hay Group also says EI has a significant impact on performance in many different situations. For example, software developers with high EI levels can develop effective software three times faster than others; sales consultants with high EI generate twice the revenue of colleagues; hiring sales staff with high EI rates halved the first-year dropout rate for a national furniture retailer; experienced partners in a multinational consulting firm who were assessed on their EI levels delivered 139 per cent more profit from their accounts than other partners; and oil refinery managers who participated in the Hay Group EI development programme over two years showed a 20 per cent increase in performance compared to colleagues.
And, Daniel Goleman, who popularised EQ through his book, Emotional Intelligence, has said people with highly developed EQ are usually self-smart — they are able to make sense of what they do and why they do. Goleman also claimed that 20 per cent of success in life is down to IQ and 80 per cent to EQ.
Though many critics have argued that these precise claims have little or no scientific evidence to back them up, no one can argue against the basic premise that EI is central to success in leadership. For example, research has shown two people with the same IQ have had varying results in their career path in almost the same environment. While one became highly successful, the other fell by the wayside unable to cope with the challenges in the senior executive suite.
The good part is unlike one’s level of IQ, which changes very little from childhood, EQ includes skills that can be learnt. That’s precisely why more and more companies are adding emotional competency to their performance benchmarks.
But make no mistake. Harvard Business Review says a team with emotionally intelligent members does not necessarily make for an emotionally intelligent group. A team, like any social group, takes on its own character. So, creating an upward, self-reinforcing spiral of trust, group identity, and group efficacy requires more than a few members who exhibit emotionally intelligent behaviour. It requires a team atmosphere in which the norms build emotional capacity (the ability to respond constructively in emotionally uncomfortable situations) and influence emotions in constructive ways.
The most important part, experts say, is to have EQ embedded in the DNA of the organisation. For example, you are transferring a person after giving him promotion. While a low EQ-company won’t bother about it as it considers the promotion as a high reward in itself, a high-EQ company will also take into consideration the impact that the transfer would have on the employee’s private life. It doesn’t mean the employee would not be transferred with promotion, but the organisation will make sure he either gets enough opportunity to visit his family or facilitate the shifting of his family.
These are little things, but can have a telling effect on your employer brand value.

http://www.businessstandard.com/india/news/bshyamal-majumdarbyou-emotionally-intelligent/492062/