DailyFinance.comhttp://www.dailyfinance.comDailyFinance.comhttp://o.aolcdn.com/os/df/2013/img/2-dailyfinance_logo_m.pngDailyFinance.comhttp://www.dailyfinance.comen-usCopyright 2013 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/London Therapist for Disheartened Bankers Tells Their Tales of Woehttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/banker-therapist-city-london/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/banker-therapist-city-london/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/banker-therapist-city-london/#commentsFiled under:

London therapist for disheartened bankers tells their tales of woe
Getty Images
The latest register of how far the banking profession has fallen in public esteem is provided by "a life and executive coach" who works with clients employed in London's financial sector. Writing at The Guardian's Banking Blog, Karin Peeters paints a dismal picture of many bankers' lives, describing deep disaffection and gnawing unhappiness, even outright embarrassment at being affiliated with finance.

Peeters criticizes condemnations of the entire business, which she considers both unfair and "counterproductive": "In my eyes, banker bashing will not lead people with low self-esteem to change course. They will only become more defensive since you attack their core sense of self."

According to Peeters, bankers can no longer count on the support of those closest to them. "It's as if they feel ashamed of working for a bank nowadays," she reports. "Their own parents accuse them of misusing tax money." To disclose one's true professional identity at a party is to risk enduring "another terrible discussion about bonuses and bailouts" -- a small price to pay for all those bonuses and bailouts, one would think, but apparently mortifying nonetheless.

These days, it seems you can't even count on a City of London gig to open romantic doors: "Some of my clients have removed their job title from internet-dating sites," Peeters informs us.

It's jarring to remember the enormous prestige that investment banking used to enjoy in this society. After the lurid excesses of the 1980s -- encapsulated in popular culture by Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" and in reality by the Savings and Loan crisis -- the financial industry reentered the realm of respectability under President Bill Clinton, primarily in the person of former Goldman Sachs (GS) co-chairman Robert Rubin. With Rubin at the helm of the Treasury Department, the Clinton administration advanced a program of financial liberalization and deregulation -- about which the former president would later express regret, saying he'd been wrong to take Rubin's advice on derivatives -- and Wall Street's portion of the economic pie grew ever larger.

This era of deference to, bordering on veneration of, Wall Street-affiliated financial wizards reached a symbolic apogee in February 1999, when Rubin and his protege, Harvard economist Lawrence Summers, were featured on the cover of TIME with Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and the grandiose billing "The Committee to Save the World." We all know how that turned out: Just look at the story of Citigroup (C), the megabank Rubin ran as CEO after leaving government.

But Peeters thinks we've overcorrected since the financial crisis, going from stoking the profession's collective ego to unfairly denigrating all its members. She wants us to understand that "nine out of 10 bankers are like the rest of us." (What the tenth banker is like she doesn't dare to say.) "They are hoping for a nice day at work. They hope their partner will go on loving them. This idea that bankers wake up in the morning thinking: 'Ah, can't wait to screw someone over...' is total nonsense."

That might strike you as a straw man, since what's at issue in critical discussions of the financial sector is not bankers' personalities but rather their institutional roles. (And as Peeters herself notes, in corporate life the wearing of a mask or persona -- for instance that of "a robot-like person", unconnected to others through empathy -- "may be useful in some cases".) But Peeters keeps things strictly personal, explaining that in her experience bankers are motivated not by greed --"I have never heard a client say: 'I'm doing this for the money' " -- but by the intellectual challenge the job provides. At the same time, she sure makes banking sound like an awful, empty exercise:

Work is no longer fulfilling, they tell me in our first session. "This is not me." They might disagree with the culture, the products they have to sell, the corporate strategy, how people are treated or the aim of the company as a whole.

"Nobody at work knows who I am," they say. "Maybe one person on the entire trading floor is aware of what I really think and feel." One client talked about standing in the shower screaming without a sound. Then she straightened out her face, glued on a smile and went to work.

So why keep working in such a dystopia? Because the banking sector offers people "the promise of emotional security":

Some people have a literally insatiable need for validation by external impulses (people, salary, bonus, car) because this helps them increase their sense of self-worth. They believe they always need to be more/better/higher, and this inner fear drives everything they do.

This seems like a pretty good therapeutic paraphrase of "greed" -- who besides Scrooge McDuck wants money as "an end in itself", to be hoarded in some chamber rather than exchanged for gratification? -- but you probably don't get very far as a life coach in the City of London by telling people that they're greedy. And Peeters seems to be doing well in her chosen specialty: Banks themselves hire her, "to train their staff in authentic leadership, mindfulness and self-awareness."

For all the misery she relates, there's no indication that Peeters's advice ever touches on the possibility of career change. Instead, she counsels her clients to cultivate sources of self-esteem aside from the trappings of their jobs, some of which have been devalued by the "trampl[ing]" of a cruel media. "It takes self-worth to say: no, I can't come into the office this weekend because I am going away with my loved-one on a weekend to Rome." Yes, that's more like it.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>bankersGoldman SachstherapyEamon MurphyFri, 17 May 2013 18:20:00 ESTGoogle Links Wallet to Gmail, Letting Users Attach Money to Emailshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/google-wallet-gmail-email-money/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/google-wallet-gmail-email-money/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/google-wallet-gmail-email-money/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Google wallet and gmail
Google
If you use Google (GOOG) Wallet, you'll soon be able to send people money using Gmail, attaching a dollar amount to a message just as you might a photograph or a PDF.

The company announced the new feature on Wednesday at its Google I/O developer conference in San Francisco. The plan is to integrate Google Wallet -- which allows users to store credit and debit card information on their smartphones, and make payments using near field communication (NFC) -- with the world's most popular web-based email service.

Peter Hazlehurst, director of product management for Google Wallet, told CNET the company wasn't abandoning its pay-by-tapping-on-checkout-terminal mobile technology:

We are not pulling away from NFC. We are simply making a much richer Wallet experience. There are still places where NFC can't be used. And not every device has it yet.

Google Wallet's new functionality is intended to help fill the gaps until PayPass is more widely adopted. The convenience of emailing money might also help make Google Wallet users out of Gmail account holders, who number in the hundreds of millions.

Sponsored Links
The service is free for users whose bank accounts are linked to their Google Wallets, as well as those who use a Google Wallet prepaid account; but there's a charge for taking the money from a credit or debit card. W3Reports observes that PayPal, which years ago "pioneered the concept of sending money to an email address," offers a "slight advantage" by allowing its users to choose which party pays the 2.9 percent fee for credit card transactions: the sender or the receiver.

To start transferring money with Gmail now, you have to get someone who already has access to send you $1. Once they do, you'll see a dollar sign icon when hovering over the attachment paperclip; click on it and you'll be able to enter the sum you want to transfer. If you can't find any early adopter to initiate you, this newfangled money-wiring will be gradually rolled out to U.S. Gmail users age 18 and over in the coming months.



While sender and receiver both need a Google Wallet account, you can send money to someone who doesn't have a Gmail address. Quartz cites the Bank Secrecy Act as placing an upper limit of $10,000 on money attachments.

As for security, Google offered broad assurances on the feature's rollout page, calling it "A safer way to send money":

When you use Google Wallet, your financial information is safely encrypted and stored on secure servers, and all transactions are monitored 24/7 to prevent fraudulent activity. In addition, Google Wallet Purchase Protection covers 100% of eligible unauthorized transactions

Of course, this isn't the first such technological offering: Two years ago, Bank of America (BAC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Wells Fargo (WFC) launched a similar pay-by-computer-or-smartphone feature, which Chris Velazco of TechCrunch says "could be more than a little tedious" to set up "if the recipient wasn't a member of the same bank." Google, on the other hand, "seems intent on making the process much easier on all the parties involved".

Gallery: 6 Ways Google Glass Will Change the Way You Shop

1. Barcode Scanning and Price Comparisons2. Budget and Account Balance Checks3. Get Better Customer Service4. Get Live Feedback on That Outfit5. Divide and Conquer at the Grocery Store

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Bank Secrecy ActemailFinanceGmailGoogleGoogle Checkoutgoogle walletJPMorgan Chasemobile paymentsnear field communicationPayPalQuartzWells FargoEamon MurphyFri, 17 May 2013 14:40:00 ESTThe Coca-Cola Code: Teen 'Buys' Recipe for $15 Million on eBayhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/coke-recipe-sale-15-million-ebay/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/coke-recipe-sale-15-million-ebay/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/coke-recipe-sale-15-million-ebay/#commentsFiled under:

Coca-cola recipe
EBay
One of the greatest trade secrets in corporate American history, guarded jealousy for more than a century, was allegedly put up for sale on eBay (EBAY) by an antiques hunter in Georgia: the recipe for the Coca-Cola (KO) Co.'s signature soda.

And the man who found what he believes to be the formula thought for an instant he'd sold it for $15 million.

It turns out, in an unfortunate bit of publicity for eBay, the "buyer" was a 15 year-old with nowhere near that kind of cash.

Cliff Kluge of Ringgold told Atlanta's WXIA he came upon the recipe in "a box of letters and papers at an estate sale." The document was dated 1943. "You don't stumble on things like this very often," Kluge said. "It's a letter, and a formula, and the processes to make it."

Hoping to monetize his find, Kluge put the recipe up for auction online, with a "Buy It Now" price of $15 million.

That option was apparently irresistible to some teenage eBay user, who pledged money he or she (probably he, though) doesn't have.

"It would have been a wonderful thing," Kluge told AFP, "but some 15-year-old kid bid on it -- and it's not a legitimate bid."

EBay rules give the winning bidder a three-day period to make payment. So in the likely event that Kluge's 15-year-old tormenter can't put up the money, the treasure hunter plans to put the recipe back up for sale.

He acknowledges, however, that he can't prove that he has the original formula. "No one can because only two people (both executives of Coca-Cola) in the world know it."

"We sleep well at night knowing the secret formula is safe and secure with us," a Coke spokesman told RT.

The company's archivist sounded a similar note. "This happens every few years, and the desire to possess the secret formula speaks to the power of the brand," Ted Ryan said to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "But there is only one copy of the formula, and we've got it locked in our vault (at the World of Coke museum in downtown Atlanta)."

While that account seems unlikely -- how can there be no other extant copies in the world? -- the paper notes that only Coke can authentic purported recipes, and the company is not likely to admit that its secret is out, if that ever transpires.

NEXT: Shhh: 10 Make-or-Break Trade Secrets

Gallery: Shhh: 10 Make-or-Break Trade Secrets

Thomas' English MuffinsCoca Cola's Secret RecipeGoogleKFC's Fried Chicken

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>cliff klugecoca-colacoke recipeeBayEamon MurphyThu, 16 May 2013 14:00:00 ESTActing IRS Head Steven Miller to Resign, Says Obamahttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/steven-miller-irs-commissioner-resigns/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/steven-miller-irs-commissioner-resigns/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/steven-miller-irs-commissioner-resigns/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Acting IRS head Stephen Miller resigns, Obama says
AP Photo/Al BehrmanThe John Weld Peck federal building in Cincinnati houses the main offices for the Internal Revenue Service in the city.
Addressing the controversy over the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status, President Obama said that Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had requested and received the resignation of acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller.

"I am angry about it," Obama said. He had previously called the accusations "outrageous."

According to CNN, Miller was told of the IRS's targeting of Tea Party groups on May 3, 2012, but did not disclose it to Congress. He will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday, and step down from his position at the IRS in early June.

"The president set exactly the right tone," said Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), appearing on the cable news network. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and frequently a thorn in the administration's side, added that removing an official who had mislead Congress and made false statements was a good first step towards addressing the scandal.

Although the president spoke of Miller's resigning, the acting commissioner's internal message to IRS employees begins, "It is with regret that I will be departing from the IRS as my acting assignment ends in early June." Miller acknowledged "an incredibly difficult time for the IRS given the events of the past few days," and wrote that his focus will be on ensuring "an orderly transition." He has worked at the IRS for 25 years.

According to the Associated Press, "IRS agents begin giving extra attention to tax-exempt applications from groups associated with the tea party or with a political sounding agenda in their names, such as 'Patriots,' ''Take Back the Country' or 'We the People'" in March and April 2010. A "BOLO" ("Be on the Lookout") listing was issued for "various various local organizations in the Tea Party movement" that August.

In June 2011, lawmakers began to send letters to the IRS inquiring about the agency's handling of such groups' applications for tax-exempt status. The IRS official in charge of overseeing tax-exempt organizations was briefed about the special focus on Tea Party groups, and told agents to change their procedures, but she didn't mention the targeting when testifying before Congress six months later.

Here's the AP's summary of subsequent events:

2012:

January: The criteria for screening, altered after Lerner's staff meeting six months earlier, is modified again. Now the IRS is on the lookout for references to the Constitution or Bill of Rights in the materials of organizations seeking tax-exempt status, for "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government," and more.

March 22: IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman tells Congress there is "absolutely no targeting" of groups based on their political views.

May: Lerner does not divulge the flagging in 45-page letters to two lawmakers inquiring about the issue.

May 3: Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller is told by staff that that applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups were inappropriately singled out for extra scrutiny, according to the agency. (Miller now is acting commissioner.)

June 15: Miller responds to a letter from Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who had raised concerns about possible harassment of tea party groups by the IRS. Miller does not concede conservatives had been singled out. He says generally that the IRS is seeing more tax-exempt applications from politically active groups and taking steps to "coordinate the handling of the case to ensure consistency."

July 25: Miller testifies to the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee but does not divulge what he was told in May about the screening of tea party groups.

Sept. 11: Millers writes a letter responding to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee but again does not own up to the scrutiny conservatives were placed under. Hatch had written three times to the IRS about the complaints.

Nov. 6: The presidential and congressional elections.

Nov. 15: Lerner and others from the IRS meet Ways and Means staff but again do not acknowledge the targeting.

___

2013:

Week of April 22: White House counsel learns that the inspector general is finishing a report about the IRS office in Cincinnati, which handles tax-exempt applications, according to White House spokesman Jay Carney.

May 10: Lerner apologizes on behalf of the IRS for "inappropriate" targeting of conservatives; White House counsel is said to receive inspector general's report; President Barack Obama is said to have heard of the matter for the first time. Lerner says no high-level officials were aware of the targeting, a statement seemingly at odds with the timeline of events, and blamed low-level employees in Cincinnati.

May 13: Obama says if the IRS intentionally went after conservatives, that's "outrageous." The Democratic-controlled Senate Finance Committee joins Republican-led House committees in planning fresh investigations of the matter.

May 14: Miller says his agency demonstrated "a lack of sensitivity" in trying to figure out whether organizations claiming a tax exemption met the standard for it. The Justice Department says it will conduct a criminal investigation, the inspector general's report is released, and Obama calls the findings "intolerable and inexcusable."

May 15: In congressional testimony, Attorney General Eric Holder says the FBI's investigation could include potential civil rights violations, false statements and potential violations of the law prohibiting federal employees from engaging in some partisan political activities.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>governmentIRStaxesEamon MurphyWed, 15 May 2013 18:35:00 ESTSpy Finances: What's the Going Rate for Espionage in Russia?http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/spy-finances-ryan-fogle-price-espionage-russia/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/spy-finances-ryan-fogle-price-espionage-russia/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/spy-finances-ryan-fogle-price-espionage-russia/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Ryan Fogle
Getty Images
A $100,000 signing bonus, a $1 million salary, a brand new netbook or tablet, and additional rewards depending on performance: That's the compensation package, if media reports are correct, awaiting a Russian counterterrorism officer specializing in the Caucasus region who's willing to spy for Uncle Sam.

News broke Tuesday that Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) had arrested a U.S. diplomat, Ryan Christopher Fogle, on charges of working for the CIA. In a photograph published by Russia Today, Fogle is shown being pinned to the ground by a Russian officer; the American is wearing a baseball cap and a blond wig. The FSB says Fogle was trying to flip a Russian secret services member. When he was caught, he was allegedly carrying "special technical equipment" including another wig, a microphone, a Moscow atlas, a compass, two knives, multiple pairs of sunglasses and several stacks of cash -- in 500 euro notes.

Gallery: U.S. Diplomat Fogle Arrested


Also in Fogle's possession, the Russians say, was a letter meant to be delivered to the officer Fogle intended to suborn. This missive, if authentic, gives a glimpse into post-Cold War espionage, including the going rate for betraying Mother Russia. Signed "Your friends," the letter, as translated from Russian and published by RT, compliments its intended recipient and promises hefty compensation in return for unspecified confidential disclosures:

Dear friend,

This is a down-payment from someone who is very impressed with your professionalism and who would greatly appreciate your cooperation in the future. Your security means a lot to us. This is why we chose this way of contacting you. We will continue to make sure our correspondence remains safe and secret.

We are ready to offer you $100,000 to discuss your experience, expertise and cooperation. The reward may be much greater if you are willing to answer specific questions. In addition to that, we can offer up to $1 million a year for long-term cooperation, with extra bonuses if we receive some helpful information.

So much for safe and secret.

The letter continues with instructions on how to contact the sender: by registering for a Gmail account, without providing any personal information, and sending a message to a strange address (unbacggdA@gmail.com); "In exactly one week, check this mailbox for a response from us." (RT, a state-supported media outlet, has a bit of fun reporting that this underwhelming example of tradecraft demonstrates Fogle's "technological prowess in the digital era").

Sponsored Links
Assuming the letter is legit, it tells us that spies, in addition to their enviable salary, are able to expense items necessary to their clandestine work: "If possible," the letter advises, "buy a new device (paying in cash) which you will use to contact us. We will reimburse you for this purchase."

According to The New York Times, those stacks of 500 euro notes aren't the only moneys currently concerning Russia's leadership. The paper reports that the diplomat's detention comes at a time of both increased cooperation between U.S. and Russian intelligence (following the Boston bombing) and rising concern in the Kremlin over Western efforts at political subversion:

Mr. Putin has supported new laws to block Russian officials from depositing wealth overseas, saying that doing so leaves them dangerously exposed to pressure from foreign governments. Nongovernmental organizations working in Russia are accused of meddling and are forced to register as "foreign agents" if they receive financing from abroad.

For his part, Fogle -- described by RT as "a career diplomat working as the third secretary of the Political Section of the American embassy in Moscow" -- looks to be out of a job. After questioning him, the Russians branded Fogle "persona non grata" and handed him over to the U.S. mission to be taken out of the country. Presumably, the U.S. government provides for those who do risky work like recruiting double agents (again, assuming the Russians are correct about Fogle's activities); if worst comes to worst, the Foreign Service Pension System pays an annuity supplement to eligible employees until they are 62, if they retire before that age.

Ryan Fogle Detained By Russia, Accused Of Spying For C.I.A.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>CIAFederal Security ServiceFSBinternational newsRussiaRyan FoglespyingEamon MurphyTue, 14 May 2013 17:20:00 ESTU.S. Stock Ownership Hits Another New Low, Gallup Reportshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/stock-ownership-record-low-gallup/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/stock-ownership-record-low-gallup/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/stock-ownership-record-low-gallup/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

New York Stock Exchange
Getty Images
The U.S. stock market has never been higher, at least in nominal terms: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is above 15,000, though its inflation-adjusted apex has yet to be reached. (Jeff Cox of CNBC pegs it at 15,731.54.) And the S&P 500 continues to set new records as well.

At the same time, U.S. wages are stagnant, and interest rates for bank accounts are near zero. Americans, in other words, could really use the income provided by stocks.

Unfortunately, according to new research by Gallup, U.S. stock ownership is at a record low:

Just over half of Americans, 52%, now say they personally, or jointly with a spouse, own stock outright or as part of a mutual fund or self-directed retirement account.

Gallup conducted its annual Economy and Finance survey from April 4-14, and found that, for the fifth year in a row, fewer than 60 percent of Americans own stocks. Moreover, the percentage who do has been generally decreasing since 2007, the year the recession began, and now stands at its lowest point since Gallup began tracking it in 1998.

Sponsored Links
Gallup's Lydia Saad suggests that the level of stock market participation is linked to unemployment: "Americans' ownership of stock may, in fact, be more a function of their ability to buy it, than of whether its value is soaring." Unemployment currently stands at 7.5 percent, which represents improvement but is still above the rate generally considered healthy (5 to 6 percent).

So who's being left out of the rally? Those under 30 aren't profiting, nor are households making less than $30,000. No surprises there. But the steepest drops in stock ownership since April 2008, when the rate of overall investment in the market was 10 points higher, have been among 30-49 year-olds (down 14 percent) and middle-income earners (down 16 percent) -- "the groups for whom stock ownership five years ago may have been the biggest financial stretch," in Gallup's words.

For the survey's complete findings, head over to Gallup.

How to Benefit From the Dow Record Highs


Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>CNBCDow Jones Industrial AverageFinancefiscal crisisGallupGreat Recessionstock marketstocksEamon MurphyWed, 08 May 2013 17:10:00 EST5 Ways to Engage With Warren Buffett on Twitterhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/warren-buffett-twitter-tips/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/warren-buffett-twitter-tips/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/warren-buffett-twitter-tips/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

NEW YORK, NY - JANUARY 18: Warren Buffett attends the grand re-opening of Jay-Z's 40/40 Club on January 18, 2012 in New York City. (Photo by Johnny Nunez/WireImage)
Johnny Nunez/WireImage
On Thursday, Warren Buffett joined Twitter with a missive sure to land in the pantheon of pioneering communications, alongside Samuel Morse's "What hath God wrought?" and Brian Kernighan's "hello, world":
Buffett is known to be something of a Luddite personally, having claimed he missed the details of a potential deal to rescue Lehman Brothers because he didn't know how to check his voicemail. And he is said to have resisted for years an offer of a desktop computer from his pal Bill Gates, so it seems doubtful he'll be a heavy user of Twitter.

Still, Buffett's got $53.5 billion in assets, according to Forbes, and once played ping-pong with a comically oversized paddle. He can make things happen, in other words, and he's down to have some fun. So it might be worth your while, if #socialmedia's your thing, to try to interact with the Oracle of Omaha on Twitter dot com.

Here are some suggestions.

Gallery: 5 Things to Do Now That Warren Buffett Is on Twitter

1. Get blocked by Warren Buffett2. Get followed by Warren Buffett3. Set up a meeting with Warren Buffett IRL4. Get retweeted by Warren Buffett5. Hack Warren Buffett's account

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Bill GatesForbeshackerssocial mediaTwitterWarren BuffettEamon MurphyTue, 07 May 2013 14:50:00 ESTJPMorgan Chase Faces Federal Probe Over Energy Trading 'Schemes'http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/jpmorgan-chase-energy-trading-ferc-probe/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/jpmorgan-chase-energy-trading-ferc-probe/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/jpmorgan-chase-energy-trading-ferc-probe/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

JPMorgan facing federal action over power plant
Getty Images
Federal investigations are nothing new for JPMorgan Chase (JPM), but the latest government inquiry into the behavior of the country's largest bank by assets bears uncomfortable similarities to one of the most notorious chapters in the history of American business.

The New York Times reports on the contents of a confidential government memo sent to the bank in March, "warning of a potential crackdown by the regulator of the nation's energy markets":

Government investigators have found that JPMorgan Chase devised "manipulative schemes" that transformed "money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers," and that one of its most senior executives gave "false and misleading statements" under oath.

Connoisseurs of corporate scandal -- and probably every investor who remembers the start of this century -- will immediately think of Enron, the energy market-manipulating giant that went from six-time consecutive winner of Fortune's "most innovative" award (1996-2001) to what was at the time the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

The "schemes" in question reportedly originated in Houston, where JPMorgan traders under pressure to make big returns are alleged to have swindled California and Michigan out of $83 million by presenting deceptive energy prices. The bank says everything was on the up-and-up.

There's more alleged wrongdoing at the bank, including improper collection of credit card debt and silence over suspicious trading by Bernie Madoff, the biggest Ponzi schemer in history. The Times also says JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who is not personally under government scrutiny, met with prosecutors and the FBI this week to discuss the infamous "London Whale" case, a massive trading loss that prompted accusations of a cover-up and led to a blistering Senate report.

For more on this story, as well as other developments moving the market today, check out the DailyFinance Market Minute video below.


Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>banksBernie MadoffcommoditiesEnergyEnronFinanceFortuneJamie DimonJPMorgan ChaseLondon WhalePonzi SchemeThe New York TimesEamon MurphyFri, 03 May 2013 11:35:00 ESTNetflix Plays a Sarah Palin Hashtag Game, Gets Burnedhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/netflix-twitter-hashtag-sarah-palin-films/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/netflix-twitter-hashtag-sarah-palin-films/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/netflix-twitter-hashtag-sarah-palin-films/#commentsFiled under: ,

Sarah Palin - Iron Sky
Iron SkyStephanie Paul plays The President of the United States in "Iron Sky" by Blind Spot Pictures.
Sarah Palin's totem is the mama grizzly, and her admirers are as protective of her as the fabled bear is of her cubs.

Their target today is the resurgent Netflix (NFLX), which reported its first quarter results earlier this week. Twitchy -- conservative commentator Michelle Malkin's Twitter monitor/controversy generator -- reports that the hashtag #SarahPalinFilms arose on Tuesday night, attributing it to "lefties" whose apparent dismissiveness towards Palin is belied by their purported obsession with her: "You know, because her 15 minutes have come and gone and she's totally not living rent-free in their heads." #Sarcasm.

Sensing an opportunity to #leverage #socialmedia to #grow their #brand, whoever was manning the Netflix Twitter account thought of a 2012 science fiction comedy film called "Iron Sky," which features a character obviously based on Palin. But the plot of this Finnish-German-Australian production would provide an occasion for the kind of theatrically outraged response that Twitchy specializes in ginning up. For "Iron Sky" concerns a group of Nazis who flee to the moon after Germany's defeat in World War II and return in 2018 via spaceships to take over the world. And the Palin-like president of the United States winds up collaborating with a couple of moon Nazis on her reelection campaign, and in general seems like a figure of ridicule.

It sounds like a pretty dumb movie, and got terrible reviews, but the Sarah Palin connection is indisputable. Netflix tweeted:
A vigilant follower alerted Twitchy to this apparent breach of corporate PR political neutrality, and the site followed its usual procedure, posting angry replies from Twitter users who resented the "cheap shot." Soon the hashtag was taken over by reactions to the Netflix tweet. Mission accomplished.

On the plus side, the tweet has now achieved much more #reach and #engagement than it otherwise would have, which sounds like a social media #win for $NFLX. Twitchy amplifies the voices of users who indignantly insist that they'll cancel their Netflix accounts or use Amazon Prime after something like this, but Netflix might sense that deleting the tweet, or issuing some kind of apology, would only provide an occasion for further commentary.

Twitchy has already documented, in a follow-up post, several conversations between concerned citizens and Netflix reps, including one employee who mistakenly stated that Netflix was not responsible for the tweet (which remains online as of this writing). The company line seems to be that Netflix was merely promoting a new release and takes no political position on Palin.

Brietbart.com's entertainment division, Big Hollywood, has also taken up the cause, declaring, "The Internet will not only ensure that Netflix's shockingly tone-deaf tweet spreads like wildfire, but this is the kind of divisive behavior that can blemish a company forever."

#Forever.

"Had Netflix contributed to an #ObamaFilm hashtag game with the exact same title... Well, we all know Netflix would never do that," writer John Nolte continued. "The mainstream media would pummel them into dust." More likely Netflix wouldn't do that because "Iron Sky" has nothing to do with Obama, but the general point is probably true.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings himself once got into social media hot water when he posted on his personal Facebook page in July 2012 that the company's users had exceeded 1 billion hours of streamed content. Netflix shares rose 6.2 percent that day, leading to threats of an SEC civil claim. Last month, the SEC said companies are allowed to make announcements on social media, as long as investors are alerted to how stock price-affecting information will be disclosed.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>entertainmentNetflixSarah Palinsocial mediatwitterEamon MurphyWed, 01 May 2013 20:30:00 ESTEverywhere Else, May Day Honors Workers; Here, It Salutes 'Loyalty'http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/01/may-day-labor-patriotic-holidays-loyalty-law/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/01/may-day-labor-patriotic-holidays-loyalty-law/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/01/may-day-labor-patriotic-holidays-loyalty-law/#commentsFiled under: , ,

May Day protest on May 1, 2013 in New York City.
Getty Images
Today is May Day, the international celebration of workers' rights and labor solidarity that originated right here in the United States, as a commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket incident in Chicago.

International Workers' Day is a big deal around the world, marked by demonstrations and officially recognized in more than 80 countries.

In the U.S., however, the holiday has been subverted by official decree. In 1921, during the Red Scare, an alternative designation for May 1 was created: "Americanization Day." According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars' database of Patriotic Days, "On May 1, 1930, 10,000 VFW members staged a rally at New York's Union Square to promote patriotism." In 1949, Americanization Day morphed into Loyalty Day, and in 1958 -- during the waning days of McCarthyism -- Congress made Loyalty Day official.

As if that weren't enough, the government also made May 1 "Law Day, U.S.A." -- a special moment for the reaffirmation of Americans' loyalty to the United States, and the cultivation of respect for the law. To be fair, the language of the relevant act does mention in particular "the ideals of equality and justice under the law" that should guide relations between citizens and countries, and President Eisenhower in his proclamation spoke of law's importance "in the settlement of international disputes."

Sponsored Links
The president is requested to issue a proclamation on May 1 "calling on all public officials to display the flag" and "inviting the people of the United States to observe Law Day, U.S.A., with appropriate ceremonies". President Obama has complied, releasing a statement that emphasizes "our long journey toward equality for all," from the Emancipation Proclamation through the Civil Rights movement and up to Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

That's about as progressive a spin as one can put on such a holiday, with its authoritarian name and origins in the darkest periods of domestic anticommunism. And in a post-War on Terror world, with at least 100 men hunger striking at Guantánamo Bay -- where half the remaining prisoners have been cleared for release by the president's task force -- the rule of law could sure use a shot in the arm.

But a lack of accountability for crimes like torture and warrantless wiretapping, to say nothing of improper foreclosure and securities fraud, isn't the primary problem our society faces. Economic inequality is out of control: Income and profits are growing for businesses, while workers' wages have remained essentially stagnant. People perceive this injustice, which is why you may well see Americans outside today marking May Day. Loyalty Day/Law Day U.S.A. observances will likely be harder to spot.

Gallery: How Saving the Post Office Can Save You Money

What's wrong with the post office?Why is the USPS losing so much money?Would that solve the problem?Is cost-cutting the best option?How do other countries manage?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Barack ObamaCivil RightsDwight D. EisenhowerEconomic egalitarianismEmancipation ProclamationInternational Workers DaylaborLoyalty DayMay DayMcCarthyismRed ScareU.S.unionsUnited StatesVeterans of Foreign WarsWorldEamon MurphyWed, 01 May 2013 15:15:00 ESTNew Hampshire Man Loses Life Savings on a Carnival Gamehttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/carnival-game-life-savings-Henry-Gibbohm/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/carnival-game-life-savings-Henry-Gibbohm/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/carnival-game-life-savings-Henry-Gibbohm/#commentsFiled under:

Henry Gibbohm Jr.
WMUR News 9Henry Gibbohm Jr.
Carnies get a bad rap, and this sort of thing is why: A New Hampshire man says he lost $2,600, which he describes as his life savings, on a carnival game called Tubs of Fun. He was trying to win an Xbox Kinect and show his kids a good time, he says; he wound up winning only a giant stuffed banana sporting dreadlocks and a Rasta hat.

Henry Gibbohm Jr. of Epsom, N.H, went to the carnival in Manchester on Saturday night. He says an employee enticed him into playing the game, which involves tossing balls into a bucket without having them bounce back out.

It was easy at first, said Gibbohm, 30, but after a practice round, the game became suspiciously more difficult. "The ball just bounces right out," Gibbohm told WMUR News 9, "there's really no way of doing it. But when you're throwing it in at first, I mean it just sinks right in. There's no issue at all. You get eight balls, seven mistakes ... It's foolproof, there's no way."

The carnival worker deceived him, Gibbohm said: "The guy's telling me, 'Just keep people interested, man. I'll give you your money back.'"

Gibbohm told WBZ-TV he repeatedly went double-or-nothing in an attempt to recoup his losses. After burning through $300 in a matter of minutes, he drove home to get $2,300 in cash.

Sponsored Links
But it didn't work. Gribbohm was unable to win the game, and New Hampshire Union Leader reporter Paul Feely explains why this might have been so. Citing a book called "Carnival Fraud 101," Feely writes that "the 'Tubs of Fun' game features plastic 'muck' buckets from home improvement stores so that the ball gets extra bounce. From inside the booth, the worker tosses a softball and from his vantage point, it stays inside the tub. Then he gives you the second softball for a practice throw -- and it stays in for a win."

The weight of the first ball dampens the bottom of the bucket, preventing practice tosses from bouncing out. But the carnival worker removes both balls and hands them to the player, once the fee for the game has been payed ($5 for two balls, according to the Union Leader). Now, keeping a toss in the bucket is virtually impossible.

When he went back the next day to complain, Gibbohm says, he was given back only $600 and the Rasta banana. He filed a police report, alleging fraud. The company that operates the carnival, Fiesta Shows, has said that Gibbohm spent far less than $2,600, a claim he rejects. Detectives have so far been unable to locate the game operator in question.

Man Loses Life Savings in a Carnival Game


Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>gamblingKinectlife savingsLifeSavingsScamsEamon MurphyWed, 01 May 2013 12:07:00 ESTStudy: More Money Never Stops Buying More Happinesshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/money-happiness-Easterlin-Paradox-brookings-study/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/money-happiness-Easterlin-Paradox-brookings-study/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/money-happiness-Easterlin-Paradox-brookings-study/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Happiness and wealth
Alamy
Another salvo in the ongoing debate over whether money buys happiness: New research out of the Brookings Institution claims there is no ceiling above which additional wealth stops contributing to people's sense of well-being.

The authors are Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Michigan, and their primary foil is Richard Easterlin, who in 1974 proposed that increasing average income in a country is not associated with rising happiness -- a notion that came to be called the Easterlin Paradox.

In cross-country comparisons, Easterlin found that the average reported national happiness level did not vary significantly with national per capita income. In addition, although the United States saw its per capita income rise from 1946 to 1970, there was no accompanying trend in the average reported happiness level, which actually declined during the 1960s.

Easterlin's thesis was influential, sparking lots of subsequent inquiry in the field of "happiness economics." Stevenson and Wolfers first challenged it in 2008, arguing that a review of "recent data on a broader array of countries" established "a clear positive link between average levels of subjective well-being and GDP per capita across countries." They also found "no evidence of a satiation point beyond which wealthier countries have no further increases in subjective well-being," and reported that economic growth is in fact associated with rising happiness.


Sponsored Links
Since then, Stevenson entered public service, working as chief economist at the Bureau of Labor under former Secretary Hilda Solis. Now she and Wolfers are taking another shot at the Easterlin Paradox in a paper titled "Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?" Their conclusion: Easterlin had it all wrong. (Although, in fairness, he didn't have access to as much data as they do.) "The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise," Stevenson and Wolfers contend. "If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it."

The authors discuss a "modified-Easterlin hypothesis" -- the idea that a link exists between income and well-being among the world's poor, but that the correlation levels off or disappears above a certain income threshold. The so-called satiation point, at which rising income stops matching increased happiness across countries, has been identified as falling between $8,000 and $25,000 by other scholars.

Stevenson and Wolfers are having none of it. They say there is an association between income and happiness among the rich similar to that found among the poor, and that this link holds "in roughly equal measure" for cross-national comparisons between rich countries and poor ones. The two graphs below summarize their findings:
more money more happiness

Here, income increases in rich countries -- those with per capita GDP above $15,000 -- are actually associated with a steeper rise in life satisfaction.

more money more happiness

And here, although different countries display different slopes, in no nation does the money-happiness relationship disappear as income increases. The association appears instead to hold in roughly equal measure. (The scale is logarithmic; each mark on the horizontal axis denotes a doubling of income.) There is, in other words, no satiation point.

The authors acknowledge an "interesting" 2010 study which found that, in the United States, people who earn more than $75,000 do not seem to be happier than those who earn just less than that. But they believe that this result was based on "very different measures of well-being."

More on Money and Happiness

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Brookings InstitutionEasterlin paradoxFinanceHilda SolisJustin Wolfersmoney and happinessMoneyAndHappinessRichard EasterlinwealthEamon MurphyTue, 30 Apr 2013 15:20:00 ESTZach Braff Defends His Movie Kickstarter: I'm Not Oprahhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/zach-braff-defends-his-movie-kickstarter-im-not-oprah/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/zach-braff-defends-his-movie-kickstarter-im-not-oprah/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/zach-braff-defends-his-movie-kickstarter-im-not-oprah/#commentsFiled under:

Zach Braff poses for a portrait in New York, Wednesday, June 22, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Sykes)
Charles Sykes, AP
Zach Braff, Hollywood rich person, has explained why he set up a Kickstarter campaign to crowdfund his next film-making effort: He's not a billionaire.

"People seem to think I have Oprah Winfrey money," Braff told the LA Times, defending his decision to solicit donations toward the production of his new movie, "Wish I Was Here." "I've done well in my career, but I am not sitting on $22 million" -- a sum that's been circulating online as an estimate of Braff's net worth. Oprah Winfrey's net worth was reported by Forbes to be $2.8 billion as of March 2013.

On Kickstarter, Braff explained his appeal to fans for financing as an attempt to ensure the project's artistic integrity:

I was about to sign a typical financing deal in order to get the money to make "Wish I Was Here," my follow up to "Garden State." It would have involved making a lot of sacrifices I think would have ultimately hurt the film. I've been a backer for several projects on Kickstarter and thought the concept was fascinating and revolutionary for artists and innovators of all kinds. But I didn't imagine it could work on larger-scale projects. I was wrong.

What changed Braff's mind was the recent Kickstarter campaign to fund a film version of "Veronica Mars," the television show starring Kristen Bell as a young private investigator. The show's creator raised more than $5.7 million, drawing on the largest number of backers in Kickstarter history (91,585) and far exceeding expectations.

Normally, those who put up the money for a movie are entitled to make their money back, plus profits, if the project is a financial success. (Granted, in the usual model, investors can't put up a measly $1.) Not so in the case of these Kickstarted films: Braff promises his benefactors a tiered structure of rewards, none of which involves return on investment. They range from the trivial -- contribute $40 and receive a "Wish I Was Here" T-shirt -- to the participatory -- send thousands of dollars towards the realization of Braff's ambitions and he'll allow you to name a character, offer advice after screening the director's cut, or play a walk-on role. The last of these, which was available to one deep-pocketed admirer for a pledge of $10,000, has already been claimed. But eight out of 10 "visual effects made possible by" end credits are still available, for $9,000 a piece.

Braff's Kickstarter is on track to reach its goals rapidly. As of this writing, the campaign has raised more than $1.8 million toward its goal of $2 million, in just two days. But as the Kickstarter method proves its worth for established entertainers like Braff and Bell, a backlash is starting: "A dollar for Braff is a dollar away from an unknown," The Guardian's film blog argues. And Braff's defense -- that he may be rich, but he's not that rich -- is tough to take seriously from an actor who made $350,000 an episode while starring in "Scrubs," as Entertainment Weekly reported in 2007.

If someone has money to burn and wants a chance to hang out on a movie set, and happens to be a big Zach Braff fan, it seems harmless enough. But there's something exploitative about selling low-level access to the movie business, a highly insular industry that many people want desperately to enter. One of Braff's reward packages, for those who give $5,000 or more, promises to make five fans his "personal guests at the premiere and afterparty." This offer is already sold out. One wonders what those donors want to gain from their pledges: Just a good time with an actor they admire, and maybe an extra dimension to their enjoyment of the film? Or are they hoping for a lasting benefit from their investment?


--------------------------

Gallery: Riches to Rags: 5 Tales of Woe From Those Who Had It All and Lost It

The AthleteThe HeiressThe SoldierThe Business OwnerThe Actor

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>crowdfundingfilmsGarden StateHollywoodkickstarteroprah winfreyWish I Was Here movieZach BraffEamon MurphyFri, 26 Apr 2013 17:15:00 ESTMath in a Time of Excel: Economists' Error Undermines Influential Paperhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/reinhart-rogoff-debt-GDP-spreadsheet-error/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/reinhart-rogoff-debt-GDP-spreadsheet-error/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/reinhart-rogoff-debt-GDP-spreadsheet-error/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Getty Images Harvard University professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff are at the top of the economics profession, with influence inside and outside the academy. Both have worked in senior positions at the International Monetary Fund; both have chairs at Harvard. Rogoff was a chess grandmaster in his mid-twenties, before giving up the royal game to focus on economics. "I'm not a great mathematician," he told the Financial Times, explaining the relation between his interests, "but game theory really clicked for me." This method of analysis offers insight into government behavior during a debt crisis, Rogoff suggested: "One of the reasons that Carmen Reinhart and I hit it off, is that we are both incredibly cynical about governments."

Now the most influential product of their collaboration - an argument widely considered to have helped lay the basis for the West's recent shift toward austerity economics - has been shown to rest in large part on a simple error, a spreadsheet coding mistake discovered by a 28 year-old graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Thomas Herndon.

"I almost didn't believe my eyes when I saw the basic spreadsheet error," Herndon told Reuters. "I was like, am I just looking at this wrong? There has to be some other explanation." Herndon asked his girlfriend for confirmation that he wasn't missing something. He was right, she said.

The story begins with a large-scale research project carried out by Reinhart and Rogoff, investigating hundreds of years of financial crises around the world. The result was a well-received 2009 book, This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. They also published a paper based on a selection of their data, titled "Growth in a Time of Debt" (2010), which claimed to show that economic growth slows appreciably once a country's public debt to GDP ratio gets above 90 percent.

It was an argument bound to receive attention from the press and policymakers, because, according to some projections, the U.S. was set to pass that purported 90 percent red line in the coming decade. And the Reinhart-Rogoff result achieved notoriety on both sides of the Atlantic: Reinhart testified before the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; Paul Ryan cited the study in his 2013 budget, "The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal"; and European Union Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn spoke in February of "serious academic research" that indicated an economic danger zone above 90 percent debt-to-GDP. (The G20 countries have said they will soon consider a proposal "to cut public debt over the longer term to well below 90 percent of gross domestic product," The Fiscal Times reports.)

The Washington Post editorial board even presented the "Growth in a Time of Debt" finding as established economic fact. Writing about the risks of supposedly overly rosy economic growth and spending projections, the paper cautioned, "debt-to-GDP could keep rising - and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth."
Growth in a Time of Debt
DailyFinance

Needless to say, this being an academic question, there was disagreement all along. Several economists argued for "reverse causation," suggesting that high levels of debt are in fact caused by slow economic growth, rather than conversely. Others questioned the data that Reinhart and Rogoff chose to focus on, saying the authors excluded evidence that didn't match their take-home result.

But the fatal blow came when Herndon attempted to replicate the eminent professors' findings for a class assignment. He thought he would arrive at the same results but offer a different explanatory conclusion; instead he found that the numbers weren't right. When Reinhart and Rogoff provided their data spreadsheet, Herndon saw why: In the words of a paper he wrote with his teachers, "a coding error in the RR working spreadsheet entirely excludes five countries, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, and Denmark, from the analysis." This spreadsheet error "is responsible for a -0.3 percentage-point error in RR's published average real GDP growth in the highest public debt/GDP category."

error in Spreadsheet


So that slightly negative average growth rate for countries with debt-to-GDP ratios was illusory, the product of an Excel error; 2.2 percent is the actual GDP growth rate for countries above the 90 percent mark.

Herndon and his co-authors found other errors, as well; Mike Konczal summarizes their findings at Next New Deal. Confronted with Herndon et. al's evidence, Reinhart and Rogoff released a response which essentially said "this changes nothing." They later conceded the coding mistake, saying, "It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers. We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper." They don't accept the other criticisms, which concern data manipulation (selective exclusions and unconventional weighting).

Herndon's teacher and co-author Michael Ash told Bloomberg that the UMass-Amherst team's new calculations do show "a modest diminishment of growth" in high-debt countries, but not "the stagnation or decline" claimed by Reinhart-Rogoff. The point, in Konczal's summation, is that "there's no magic number out there":

The debt needs to be thought of as a response to the contingent circumstances we find ourselves in, with mass unemployment, a Federal Reserve desperately trying to gain traction at the zero lower bound, and a gap between what we could be producing and what we are. The past guides us, but so far it has failed to provide evidence of an emergency threshold. In fact, it tells us that a larger deficit right now would help us greatly.

But an identifiable threshold was apparently alluring to the Harvard academics, and advantageous to political elites. The tide of opinion among policymakers may be shifting, however: Olli Rehn told Reuters that the euro zone will pivot back towards attempting to promote growth, rather than cut budget deficits. Whether this decision was influenced by the Reinhart-Rogoff affair was not discussed.


Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>austerityEconomicsGDPpublic debtEamon MurphyFri, 19 Apr 2013 09:30:00 ESTReuters Prematurely Publishes Harsh George Soros Obituaryhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/reuters-publishes-premature-george-soros-obit/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/reuters-publishes-premature-george-soros-obit/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/reuters-publishes-premature-george-soros-obit/#commentsFiled under:

Getty Images
Somehow, Reuters published on Thursday evening an online obituary for Hungarian-born American financier George Soros, who remains alive.

It's not news that media organizations often keep obituaries of older famous people on file: In 2003, The New York Times ran an obituary of actor and comedian Bob Hope under the byline of Vincent Canby, the paper's former film critic, who died in 2000.

So the fact that Reuters let slip an obituary of someone who isn't dead, while remarkable, is not the strangest thing about this story; rather, what's so noteworthy is the wire service's harshly critical presentation of Soros's life, which doesn't seem in keeping with their usual style.

Here's a screenshot of the obit's first few paragraphs:



The obituary goes on to explain that Soros, who is Jewish and was born in 1930, "survived World War Two and then emigrated to Great Britain," where he "landed his first job in the financial industry largely through pure stubborn chutzpah."

Soros's philanthropy is said to have "been marked as much by his personal journey as by the needs of the communities he set out to serve."

And the article ends, after having mentioned an insider trading penalty and an unsuccessful bid to acquire the Washington Nationals baseball team, by observing that "these failings stand out in the life of this remarkably successful Hungarian-American financier, philanthropist and thinker, in contrast to his stubborn refusal to fail in virtually every other venture."

Reuters tweeted that the obituary had been wrongly published, and withdrawn:

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>George SorosinvestorsmediaobituariesReutersEamon MurphyThu, 18 Apr 2013 19:00:00 ESTWhite House Shows Taxpayers Where Their Money Went - Sort Ofhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/16/white-house-Your-2012-Federal-Taxpayer-Receipt/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/16/white-house-Your-2012-Federal-Taxpayer-Receipt/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/16/white-house-Your-2012-Federal-Taxpayer-Receipt/#commentsFiled under:

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest (L) declined to comment on why the administration made it challenging for Americans using the service to see how much wealthy taxpayers contribute toward federal spending programs.
AlamyWhite House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest (L) declined to comment on why the administration made it challenging for Americans using the service to see how much wealthy taxpayers contribute toward federal spending programs.
On Monday, the White House rolled out "Your 2012 Federal Taxpayer Receipt," an online tool that purports to provide "a breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, or health care."

A few observations:

First, the receipt calculator bases its results on how much a user reports having paid in Social Security, Medicare and income taxes. If you don't remember what you paid in these three categories, you can select an income estimate, choosing among five statuses that range from "$25,000 income - single with no children" to "$80,000 income - married with two children." But that's it: No income level higher than $80,000 is provided. Which means there's no way for a curious citizen to get an estimate of the tax burden shouldered by high earners.

White House

Maybe that's all right; the White House only promises visitors insight into the uses of their own tax dollars, not anybody else's. (And it would be impossible for a simple tool to model the nexus of loopholes and deductions that factor into the tax rates of many wealthy citizens.) But it's noteworthy that, at a time when the president himself is calling attention to the need for higher-income earners to pay their "fair share," his administration leaves upper tax brackets out of the income estimate menu.

For what's it worth, the Daily Mail reports that it took "35 minutes to calculate the taxes paid by a hypothetical $240,000 salaried earner who is married and filing taxes jointly with a spouse, using the same conditions as in the White House's example for an $80,000 earner." According to the paper, "that $240,000 salaried employee would contribute toward every federal program more than 10 times what the $80,000 employee chips in, despite earning just three times as much money." To the Mail, which notes that White House spokespeople declined to comment on the record about the exclusion of high income figures, this is evidence that the administration doesn't want the public to know how much the rich pay in taxes.
Sponsored Links
Second, that appealing-sounding group of priorities given above -- education, veterans benefits, health care -- doesn't include the category that consumes the biggest share of the income tax paid on my own estimated tax receipt: "national defense" (24.64%). And when I click on "national defense" to see a breakdown of that spending, the top item listed is "Military personnel salaries and benefits (5.62%)", although the second, "Ongoing operations, equipment, and supplies (10.26%)," is nearly twice as expensive. (Even the third, "Research, development, weapons and construction," is pricier, at 7.62%.)

Apparently the administration would rather have us thinking of our tax dollars compensating the members of our volunteer armed forces than paying for battles and bombs. (The order of items is similarly perplexing under "Jobs and Family Security," giving priority to the middlingly expensive unemployment insurance.) And while it makes sense to separate the cost of current war fighting from other military expenditures, veterans' benefits (4.53%) is listed as a separate category, rather than a subsection of national defense.

Third, the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare are treated separately from income taxes. Here again The Daily Mail sees signs of an effort to dupe taxpayers, quoting a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union as suggesting that the Obama administration wants to to "cut data from the spending side, likely to avoid showing how much SS and Medicare take out of the budget. Workers and business owners who are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes right out of their paychecks are likely not interested in separating them into a special category and pretending they never happened."

Some Medicare spending does show up on my tax receipt, as the second most expensive item listed under health care. But it's true that I contributed significantly more than that in Medicare tax. Still, given the way taxes are collected and divvied up, it's hard to see how else the White House could have presented this information; it's not a budget breakdown. If people want a visualization of how much money the president thinks should be spent on different programs, the New York Times crafted a good interactive infographic on his budget proposal last year.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Barack Obamadefense spendingFinancegovernment spendingMedicareSocial SecuritytaxesU.S.White HouseEamon MurphyTue, 16 Apr 2013 16:25:00 ESTObamas Pay 18.4% Federal Income Taxes, Donate Big to Charityhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/obama-biden-2012-tax-return/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/obama-biden-2012-tax-return/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/obama-biden-2012-tax-return/#commentsFiled under:

President Obama's family
Getty Images
The White House has released 2012 tax information for the President and Vice President.

The President and First Lady filed a joint return reporting adjusted gross income of $608,611. They paid $112,214 in taxes for an effective federal income tax rate of 18.4 percent and donated $150,034 to charity (about 24.6 percent of their earnings).

The White House press release took the opportunity to tout the so-called Buffett Rule, which it says "would ask the wealthiest Americas to pay their fair share while protecting families making under $250,000 from seeing their taxes go up." The President noted that he would pay more in taxes under his own proposals. The Obamas also paid $29,450 in Illinois state income tax.

The Bidens also filed a joint federal tax return, as well as a combined Delaware income tax return. In addition, Dr. Biden filed a separate non-resident Virginia tax return. The Vice President and his wife reported adjusted gross income of $385,072 and paid $87,851 in federal tax. They also paid $13,531 and $3,593 in state income tax to Delaware and Virginia, respectively, and gave $7,190 to charity.

To view the Obamas' and Bidens' tax returns in full, visit the White House website.

Gallery: President Obama's Weirdest New Taxes

1. A Tax on Flavored Vodka2. Golf Courses Are No Longer Tax Havens3. A Higher Tax on Cigarettes4. Corporate Jets5. Businesses Can't Deduct Punitive Damages

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>BidenBuffett RuledeductionsgovernmentobamaTax Returnstaxeswhite houseEamon MurphyFri, 12 Apr 2013 14:15:00 ESTRich, Famous, and in Arrears to the IRS: Recent Celebrity Tax Debacleshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/celebrity-tax-trouble-IRS-liens/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/celebrity-tax-trouble-IRS-liens/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/celebrity-tax-trouble-IRS-liens/#commentsFiled under:

Gallery: Celebrity Tax Delinquents

Lindsey VonnStephen BaldwinJa Rule (Jeffrey Atkins)O.J. Simpson

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>accountingback taxescelebritiesfailure to fileirstax lientaxesEamon MurphyThu, 11 Apr 2013 13:15:00 ESTOverwhelming Support for Taxpayers Giving the Least They Canhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/overwhelming-support-for-taxpayers-giving-the-least-they-can/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/overwhelming-support-for-taxpayers-giving-the-least-they-can/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/overwhelming-support-for-taxpayers-giving-the-least-they-can/#commentsFiled under:

Taxes at home poll
Cassandra Hubbart, DailyFinance
Here's a classic of unsurprising survey results: A strong majority of Americans support their fellow citizens' doing everything they can within the law to minimize their tax obligations, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Eighty-five percent of respondents say they approve of people trying to pay the lowest taxes legally allowable; 56 percent approve strongly. Thirteen percent disapprove.

More than half of Americans - 56 percent - view the federal tax system unfavorably. But the agency charged with enforcing the rules of that system came out surprisingly well: 49 percent say they see the IRS favorably, while 48 percent take the opposite view.

Among those who tend to give their enthusiastic assent to keeping one's tax bill low are Republicans, conservatives, older adults and college graduates.

As the results suggest, support for using the system to one's advantage doesn't necessarily entail support for the system itself. In a poll conduced last month, Americans favored limiting deductions for higher-income taxpayers 56 to 38 percent.

So do it as long as it's legal, all you second-home mortgage deduction-takers, but don't assume your fellow citizens think it ought to stay that way.
poll results
ABC News

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>deductionsirspollspublic opiniontax codetaxesEamon MurphyWed, 10 Apr 2013 15:45:00 ESTTrickle-Down Taxation: Maryland Residents Facing 'Rain Tax'http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/maryland-rain-tax-stormwater-runoff-chesapeake/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/maryland-rain-tax-stormwater-runoff-chesapeake/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/maryland-rain-tax-stormwater-runoff-chesapeake/#commentsFiled under:

In 1965, disgusted by what he viewed as confiscatory taxation by the British authorities -- a supertax instituted by the Labor government was taking 95 percent of top earners' income -- George Harrison wrote a bitter song from the perspective of a maniacal tax collector:

​​If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

But even Harrison's "Taxman" never conceived of a levy on the weather, something currently being instituted in Maryland.

Some background: The Chesapeake Bay faces a serious pollution problem. The Environmental Protection Agency decreed in 2010 that Maryland had to stop so much stormwater runoff from draining into the Bay, a project that would cost $14.8 billion. To pay for that, authorities decided to tax "impervious surfaces" -- in the words of The Gazette, "anything that prevents rainwater from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater runoff."

This solution is being called -- with the combined goodwill these two concepts evoke -- a rain tax.

Faced with the EPA's orders, the state has required its 10 largest counties -- Montgomery, Prince George's, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties and Baltimore city -- to raise the revenue. Rain taxes are to take effect in these areas by July 1.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the duty itself is the manner in which property owners' obligations will be calculated: According to the Gazette, "satellite imagery and geographic information systems" will be used to measure the area of roofs and driveways.

Homeowners will bear the brunt of the rain tax: of the $14.8 billion to be raised -- $482 million each year until 2025 -- about three-quarters will come from residential property owners. The rate is expected to start at $100 a year for most homeowners, although that could rise. The only rain tax shelter: credits and exemptions for property owners who follow stormwater "best practices."

How the money will be spent is another murky situation; for the full details, head over to The Gazette.

Gallery: 10 Weird Tax Laws

Colorado: Some Food Packaging Not EssentialIndiana: The Hoosier State Scares Up Some Extra CashKansas: Balloon Rides Rising in CostKentucky: Candy Not Such a Sweet DealMaine: Boat Sales Are Better For Out of Towners

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>chesapeake bayenvironmental protection agencyHomeOwnershipmarylandproperty taxestaxationtaxesweatherEamon MurphyFri, 05 Apr 2013 15:20:00 EST