Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul V. who wrote (119364)	12/7/2011 8:43:40 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Wasn't Daley a DEMOCRAT? LOL

To: Paul V. who wrote (119364)	12/7/2011 8:47:30 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224729

The William Jefferson Clinton Center for Intern Development. New US government agency.

To: Paul V. who wrote (119364)	12/7/2011 11:27:15 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

At $100 billion, Californians have 2d thoughts about high-cost, high-speed rail Let's face it: Our president, the one who had so many outstanding parking tickets when he was just Barack Obama, has rail envy. Just judging from the number of times he's mentioned the high-speed rail system of China, which has one party rule so no problem with messy democracy stuff. Or bipartisanship, there being no bi- in Chinese politics, just uni-. Or the wonderfully modern airports that communist China has constructed that we should emulate with Obama's newest stimulus spending ideas. Well, it seems many Americans are not as enamored of China's choo-choos as the president who spent much of his childhood living in Asia. Remember Florida's new Gov. Rick Scott? He took one look at Obama's $10 billion high-speedrail program and said, "It's going to cost way more and we can't afford it." Joe Biden made fun of him for not having any vision. Well, now it's California's turn. Back in 2008 when "Hope and Change" wasn't a laugh line, California's notoriously silly voters went overwhelmingly for Obama and narrowly agreed to a $9 billion bond issue to build a high-speed rail line from San Francisco through the Central Valley to Los Angeles. Because, who needs a car in the Golden state's spaghettine freeway system, right? A lot has changed since that vote. "Hope and Change" became "Hopey Changey." The nation is drowning in debt. The state faced a $20 billion deficit. The country is gripped by economic uncertainty and fears with chronically high unemployment. Washington is dysfunctional and the opposite of high-speed. Obama's idea of balancing the budget is spending more. A majority of Americans fully expect more taxes no matter what lies emerge from either side these days. Oh, and last month the California High Speed Rail Authority said new calculations indicated that the 10-year rail construction project was actually going to spill over into the next generation and take 20 years to complete. (Smile, if you don't believe the 20-year figure either.) Actually, the authority now estimates completion around 2033, when a 95-year-old Jerry Brown will still be running for some elective office. And, by the way, the authority acknowledged, the $43 billion original construction cost was off a smidge too. Now that it has voter approval, before one shovel is ready for shoveling, the new projected high-speed rail cost is going to be closer to $100 billion. As in one-tenth of a trillion. For now. So, the famous Field Poll people (no connection to the cookie matron) went out and polled Californians. And, turns out, president isn't the only vote they have remorse over. By nearly two-to-one (64-30), Californians would like the state legislature to put the rail bond issue to another vote, the survey found. And by a whopping 59-31 margin, they say they'd dump the expensive idea if they had a second chance. By party, the new No vote breaks down as 73% of Republicans, 61% of independents and 49% of Democrats. It's a moot point, however, since the Democratic governor and legislature would never risk losing that many union jobs

To: Paul V. who wrote (119364)	12/7/2011 11:29:06 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

By SHIRA OVIDE As a U.S. senator, Jon Corzine was used to grilling corporate executives and White House officials. Now he's the one in the hot seat. Reuters Former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine will face questions Thursday from U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas and the House Agriculture Committee. Mr. Corzine is expected to make his first public appearance since the Oct. 31 bankruptcy filing of MF Global Holdings Ltd. at a U.S. House of Representatives committee hearing Thursday to answer questions about his role in the firm's collapse. Mr. Corzine, who stepped down last month as MF Global's chief executive, was subpoenaed to appear. It isn't clear whether he will answer questions or invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The former Democratic senator from New Jersey also has prepared a statement he will read in front of the committee, chaired by Frank D. Lucas (R., Okla.). A spokesman for Mr. Corzine declined to comment. Mr. Corzine is likely to face questions about trades he made in European sovereign debt and about MF Global client funds that have gone missing. If he does respond to questions, Mr. Corzine must walk a careful line in Congress, according to experts in crisis management and public relations. They say he should exude both confidence and contrition in front of what is likely to be sometimes hostile questioning from his former congressional colleagues, and he must be wary of any missteps that regulators and plaintiffs' attorneys could seize on. Associated Press Rep. Frank Lucas Most of all, these public-image experts say, Mr. Corzine must be prepared to be a political punching bag. "The tendency is to want to score points, to argue a case," said Gene Grabowski, chair of the crisis and litigation practice at Levick Strategic Communications. He says that isn't usually a wise approach. Andrew Gilman, chief executive of crisis-consulting firm CommCore Consulting Group, says Mr. Corzine should use his opening statement Thursday to "show some responsibility without a concession of liability." In a congressional hearing, even saying "I'm sorry" to shareholders or MF Global clients might later be seen as a tacit admission of wrongdoing, Mr. Gilman says. "Anything he says publicly will be subject to lawyers trying to pick it apart," Mr. Gilman says. Mr. Grabowski adds it is likely Mr. Corzine has been prepped heavily for his congressional appearance. In such prepping sessions, crisis experts say, public-relations representatives stand in for members of Congress, and executives are tutored in how to respond to quasi-attacks in the form of questions. They are also trained how to sit during a congressional grilling (on the front half of the chair, with hands on the table, according to one crisis professional). Mr. Gilman says he advises clients never to repeat negative characterizations contained in questions. "We weren't trying to sweep this under the carpet," for example, sounds like a tacit admission of guilt, he says.

To: Paul V. who wrote (119364)	12/7/2011 11:41:28 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

10 Questions for Jon Corzine By STEVEN M. DAVIDOFF and PETER J. HENNING Pool photo by Andrew HarrerJon S. Corzine, the former chief of MF Global. Jon S. Corzine, the former chief executive of MF Global Holdings and a former Democratic senator from New Jersey, is being forced to return to Capitol Hill on Thursday morning. The House Agricultural Committee subpoenaed Mr. Corzine after he resisted the committee’s request that he voluntarily answer questions. It’s a reversal of fortune for the man once mentioned as a potential Treasury secretary. Mr. Corzine’s pain may be brief. Mr. Corzine is likely being advised by his lawyers to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. We’ll soon find out if he listens to his lawyers. If Mr. Corzine turns out to be more voluble, here are some questions the committee may want to ask: 1. You were chief executive of MF Global with day-to day responsibility for the entire operation. Yet, it appears that you were personally responsible for structuring and monitoring the $6.35 billion trade in sovereign European debt of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Belgium — a bet that spooked investors and the ratings agencies, ultimately bringing down the firm. You took on this responsibility despite the fact you had been a politician for more than a decade and were likely not as familiar with markets as you were when you were at Goldman Sachs. Why did you feel the need to personally trade for MF Global instead of having a trader or trading group do it? Who did you speak to structure and monitor this trade, particularly since you were preoccupied with running this entire business? 2. Your chief risk officer, Michael Roseman, warned you against this bet on troubled sovereign European debt, according to The Wall Street Street Journal. Mr. Roseman reportedly thought that the trade was too risky because MF Global did not have sufficient liquidity to sustain its positions if the firm was downgraded by the ratings agencies. Can you tell us what Mr. Roseman told you, whether his concerns were relayed to the board of directors and why you ignored his warnings? 3. As a follow-up, MF Global was heavily leveraged. After the experience of the financial crisis, when firms with high leverage ratios failed, why did you undertake a trade that appeared to consume more than half of your remaining capital? 4. MF Global was largely a brokerage firm when you took over. It did not regularly trade in sovereign debt for its own profit, at least not in the manner you did. Why did you feel the need to enter into large trading positions that the company had previously never taken, and do you think trading the firm’s capital in this manner was appropriate and expected by shareholders? Deal Professor 5. You apparently had significant contact with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and its chairman, Gary Gensler, about whether the agency should adopt regulations restricting broker use of client money to trade. Helped in part by your opposition, these rules were not adopted until after the collapse of MF Global. Mr. Gensler worked for you at Goldman Sachs, and he has now recused himself from the investigation of MF Global. stating that he did not want to become a “distraction.” Can you describe your earlier conversations with Mr. Gensler, and do you believe that you had special access to the agency because of your history with Mr. Gensler? 6. There is still as much as $1.2 billion estimated to be missing in client money entrusted to MF Global. Were you aware that client money was being used to support MF Global’s trades, and if so, why did you not stop it? Who do you think is responsible for this misuse of client money? 7. Another follow-up. As MF Global’s chief executive, you had to sign off on its quarterly financial statements and attest to the firm’s internal controls. How could so much client money apparently be missing, and the records be described by a C.F.T.C. commission as a “disaster,” when you said the internal controls met all legal requirements? 8. Your board reportedly signed off on these trades. In fact, it appears that the board had sole oversight of these investments. What did you tell the board about this trade and do you think directors comprehended the risks? 9. Some 3,000 people have lost their jobs at MF Global, and customers will likely lose significant money. You resigned from MF Global, passing up a pay package of $12.1 million, but if Interactive Brokers Group had acquired your firm, you would have automatically received this amount. Your pay package appears to be a case of heads I win, tails I break even. Do you think that your compensation was appropriate in terms of incentives? 10. This trade was only a multiyear one but could have generated up to $750 million in profit. MF Global lost almost $79 million in 2010. Was it your intent to continue to engage in large trades like this one again to generate MF Global’s profits and, if not, what was your business plan for MF Global?