Thursday, December 29, 2011

Nice Sale

Jobs for 50,000 due to the plane sale by Boeing to Saudi Arabia.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Save Democracy

Support the proposed constitutional amendment which declares that corporations do not have an individual's rights.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Building Bacllinks

ect 2:
Introducing SocialMonkee... Your FREE Instant Backlink Builder! Blog Post Body:

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Polarization Effects

Polarization in political thinking has driven out common sense. It is distressing to converse with someone in a polarized condition. It is easy to badger the other party if they go for the bait. This type of conversation is amusing but has no positive effects. I wonder what could lead us towards more common sense in our thinking. I hope it does not take a recession to do it.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Setting Value

The sale of items sets a price and an indication of value. There are many factors which enter into the decision to accept a certain price for a particular item.

If you are trying to engage in commerce and make some profit you will have to consider the factors involved.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

US Politics-Its Time

Its time for sanity in our politics. Lets find solutions for our problems. The barking back and forth by the parties is getting tiresome.

Could we find a country that is successful and copy their policies?

Monday, June 6, 2011

Whats Good For The Goose

ner Foreclosures on Bank of America (Yes, You Heard That Right)

Related Quotes
^DJI 12,089.96 -61.30
^GSPC 1,286.17 -13.99
^IXIC 2,702.56 -30.22
AdChoices
<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N3382.Yahoo/B5116950.16;abr=!ie;sz=150x30;pc=[TPAS_ID];click=http://clicks.beap.ad.yieldmanager.net/c/YnY9MS4wLjAmYnM9KDE0bTRiZGE3byhnaWQkT0xLUzNHS0lLandueFdXM1RGdlRUaDU2dUdLSWZFM3RvaDRBQmxEMyxzdCQxMzA3NDE5MTY2NDA4NjUzLHNpJDQ0NjQwNTEsdiQxLjAsYWlkJDZNZmNsRVBEbUxNLSxjdCQyNSx5YngkN2E4dnF3cTBPZjVIcDRmcEt1dGxodyxyJDEscmQkMTZpYjJmczU3KSk/1/*http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15ina72eu/M=999999.999999.999999.999999/D=news/S=2143006617:FB/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1307426366/L=OLKS3GKIKjwnxWW3TFvTTh56uGKIfE3toh4ABlD3/B=6MfclEPDmLM-/J=1307419166529278/K=8QgukfDY7F8kMh5A0wmO1w/A=2394450929415713467/R=1/X=6/*;dcopt=rcl;mtfIFPath=nofile;ord=1307419166.529278"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://clicks.beap.ad.yieldmanager.net/c/YnY9MS4wLjAmYnM9KDE0bTEwdjI1NShnaWQkT0xLUzNHS0lLandueFdXM1RGdlRUaDU2dUdLSWZFM3RvaDRBQmxEMyxzdCQxMzA3NDE5MTY2NDA4NjUzLHNpJDQ0NjQwNTEsdiQxLjAsYWlkJDZNZmNsRVBEbUxNLSxjdCQyNSx5YngkN2E4dnF3cTBPZjVIcDRmcEt1dGxodyxyJDIscmQkMWFtOWc5ZWRyKSk/1/*http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15ina72eu/M=999999.999999.999999.999999/D=news/S=2143006617:FB/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1307426366/L=OLKS3GKIKjwnxWW3TFvTTh56uGKIfE3toh4ABlD3/B=6MfclEPDmLM-/J=1307419166529278/K=8QgukfDY7F8kMh5A0wmO1w/A=2394450929415713467/R=2/X=6/SIG=13on2moj9/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N3382.Yahoo/B5116950.16;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=150x30;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=1307419166.529278?"><IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N3382.Yahoo/B5116950.16;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=150x30;pc=[TPAS_ID];ord=1307419166.529278?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=30 ALT="Advertisement"></A></NOSCRIPT>

In a modern-day evocation of David's slingshot triumph over Goliath, a couple of foreclosed homeowners in Naples, Florida reportedly foreclosed on a Bank of America branch last week, their attorney actually having moving trucks pull up in front of a Naples branch to execute a foreclosure judgment against the bank.

What must have seemed to observers like a scene out of a parallel universe - you can see some video here - was actually the fair and logical conclusion to a situation which, the court had ruled, had an unfair and illogical start. In 2009, retired police officer Warren Nyerges and his wife, Maureen Collier, paid $165,000 cash for their 2,700 square foot home in the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, and never took a mortgage out on it. So imagine their surprise when, in Februrary of 2010, Bank of America initiated foreclosure proceedings against them. The Nyerges hired an attorney, Todd Allen, to defend them against the wrongful foreclosure, and the Bank eventually abandoned the matter.

But not before the Nyerges incurred $2,534 in attorney's fees, which they requested informally from Bank of America multiple times before resorting to the courts, which ordered the bank to make the couple whole. When B of A still had not paid the judgment after five months of phone calls and letter writing by Allen and the Nyerges to the bank insisting that the court order be obeyed, Allen took the next step in the legal collection process, obtaining an order of foreclosure against the bank. (See The Best Blogs of 2011)

"They've ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated," Allen stated during an interview with CBS News.

Allen then reported to a local branch of the bank with sheriff's deputies, who he instructed to remove cash from the tellers' drawers, furniture, computers and other property. Approximately one hour later, the Naples News reports, the bank manager produced a check for $5,772.88 to satisfy Allen's fees and additional costs.

"We apologize to Mr. Nyerges that there was a delay in receiving the funds," read the bank's written statement to the Naples News. "The original request went to an outside attorney who is no longer in business."

Some might say all's well that ends well in this scenario, seeing as the Nyerges got their home, Allen got his fees and the bank got its come-uppance. But there are deeper implications to every one of these foreclosure foul-up horror stories we read about, and even those we don't. The finger-pointing to outside attorneys seems reminiscent of the banks' excuse for the robo-signing scandal that broke last fall, and just as flimsy: the fact that a bank has lots of foreclosures to process and hires an overworked, underqualified or otherwise not-up-to-the-job professional to do it does not justify the nonchalance with which documents and properties of such gravitas were treated. The similarity didn't escape Allen, who told CBS News "this is a symptom of a larger problem." (Foreclosure Watch: It's Not as Bad as You Think)

Further, these excuses also doesn't stand up to snuff: I've pointed out before that in transactions with far less monetary significance than foreclosure (and far greater frequency), banks get it right, almost every single time. Just think: when was the last time you got an extra $20 bill at the ATM? I've never yet met someone who could remember such a time. Similarly, while one or even several of the Nyerges' efforts to get B of A to pay the court judgment might have gone to the defunct lawyer's office, the Nyerges say they actually submitted their pleas directly to the bank, multiple times, to no avail: "I talked to branch managers, I called anyone who would listen to me," the couple told the Naples News. "And I wrote a certified letter to the president (of the bank). No response, nothing." (See the Top 9 Successful Ex-Playboy Bunnies)

And all these instances - from the robo-signing news to the refusal to pay this judgment, may contribute to the depression of home values, with just a few degrees of separation. A survey last year found that the robo-signing scandal caused American adults to trust the banks less. Not surprising, but perhaps this is: a study by professors at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago recently found that the vast majority of homeowners, even those with negative equity, would rather keep their homes than strategically default on them. However, "people who are angrier about the current economic situation are more willing to express their willingness to default, as are people who trust banks less."

To be fair, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's sweeping investigation into the robo-signing scandal concluded that only a small number of foreclosures actually took place wrongfully, and that even those were only wrongful because of an intervening law or event (like a bankruptcy filing by the homeowners), not because the mortgage payments weren't actually delinquent.

But if ever there was a business argument for the banks to get their procedures and processes together when it comes to foreclosure and cleaning up the messes created by the few, truly wrongful foreclosures which, like the Nyerges' case, will get widespread notoriety and further tear down consumer trust in the banks, it might be contained in these three simple statements. Less trust, more walk aways. More walk aways, more foreclosures. More foreclosures, lower home values. Enough said? We'll see.

See pictures of the emptiness created by evictions and bank seizures

See pictures of the tale of a lost mortgage

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Long in the tooth?

rc E. Babej

Strategic Marketing


Entrepreneurs

Jennifer Aniston Appears Topless In New Smartwater Ad

Jun. 3 2011 - 10:49 am | 45,259 views | 1 recommendation | 8 comments

Back in March Smartwater combined the power of celebrity, sex and new media savvy with its “Jennifer Aniston Sex Tape” video, which has racked up more than 9 million views on YouTube to date.

In one of Smartwater’s new print ads, Aniston appears topless. “Sex sells” might be one of the most well-worn clichés in advertising – but, like it or not, some clichés are well-worn for a reason, because they work.

Gratuitous? Of course – you wouldn’t have to “go there” to sell water. But bottled water is also a category where brand really does matter a great deal – because there’s little to be had in the way of tangible benefits, and therefor little is expected. For Smartwater, the name of the game is to be top-of mind at point of purchase. To that end, edgy print ads and videos featuring a beautiful celebrity are likely to deliver.

Follow me on Forbes and Twitter.

Something Worthy


"A nice breeze"

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Buffett's Reaction

Buffett Scrambles to Limit Damage

[berkshire_jp1] Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News

Warren Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, tours the exhibition area of the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting at the Qwest Center in Omaha, Neb., on Saturday.

OMAHA, Neb.—Warren Buffett on Sunday sought to limit damage to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and to his own reputation in the wake of a stock-trading controversy involving a top aide.

Asked at a news conference how his reputation has been affected by the episode, Mr. Buffett said: "I don't really feel it's changed much…Overall, everything I do is out there for people to judge."

Mr. Buffett was severely critical at Berkshire's annual meeting Saturday of the actions of the aide, who in January recommended Berkshire buy a company in which the aide had just invested. But on March 30, in announcing the aide was leaving, Mr. Buffett had spoken mildly of the aide's action. Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger said in an interview Sunday that the company fumbled that March 30 disclosure.

WSJ's Shira Ovide reports from Berkshire Hathaway's shareholder meeting on, among several topics, CEO Warren Buffett's comments about David Sokol, a former possible Buffett successor who recently resigned amid insider trading allegations.

Buffett at the Berkshire Meeting

Rick Wilking/Reuters

Mr. Buffett, in his news conference, said the company "will try to minimize mistakes we make in the future." Of his own reputation, he said he didn't think the matter would "change a record of 80 years."

Given Mr. Buffett's central role in the matter, he is likely to be interviewed if the Securities and Exchange Commission conducts depositions as part of its review.

The Berkshire chairman and CEO said Sunday he didn't know if he'd be called as a witness in a regulatory probe or possible civil litigation. He reiterated that Berkshire has turned over information to the SEC in response to an informal request. He said he wasn't aware of any formal probe.

Berkshire acted "very promptly, to make sure the [SEC] and the top of the enforcement division was well-versed," he said the day before at the annual meeting.

In a sign of how sensitively the company is handling the situation, it is keeping detailed records of all comments and relevant information about the affair, said Ron Olson, a Berkshire director and attorney, on Saturday.

A war of words between Mr. Buffett and the former top aide, David Sokol, heated up over the weekend. Mr. Buffett told the annual meeting he should have asked more questions when Mr. Sokol mentioned that he owned shares in chemicals maker Lubrizol Corp. as he recommended its acquisition.

In contrast to his March 30 remarks, when he said he thought Mr. Sokol's actions weren't "in any way unlawful," Mr. Buffett on Saturday called Mr. Sokol's actions "inexcusable" and said they violated the company's insider-trading rules and code of ethics. He said Berkshire had turned over "some very damning evidence, in my view" about Mr. Sokol's trades to the SEC.

Mr. Sokol maintains he did nothing wrong, and his attorney late Saturday released a statement calling Mr. Buffett's stance a "resort to transparent scapegoatism."

Mr. Sokol bought shares of Lubrizol in December after discussing the company with investment bankers. He sold them that month and then in January bought shares again. About a week after this second, larger purchase, he recommended Mr. Buffett buy the chemical firm. The CEO eventually agreed, and Berkshire said in mid-March it would buy Lubrizol for $9 billion in cash.

Mr. Buffett told tens of thousands of shareholders in Omaha's Qwest Center Saturday that when Mr. Sokol first mentioned owning Lubrizol stock, "I obviously made a big mistake by not saying, 'Well, when did you buy it?"

He added: "But I think if somebody says I've owned the stock, you know it sounds to me like they didn't buy it the previous week."

Mr. Buffett acknowledged that his March 30 statement didn't communicate the gravity of the situation. "What I think bothers people is there wasn't some big sense of outrage," he said. "I plead guilty to that. [But] this fellow had done a lot of good things for us over 10 or 11 years."

Mr. Munger, in the Sunday interview, said, "We underestimated our communications needs given our position in the world."

He added about the controversy broadly: "I would say that in terms of causing uproar, it ranks right up there…I'd say it's in the top two in the last 50 years" for Berkshire. "But in terms of deep human significance, I'd say it's much lower."

Judging from reactions at Saturday's event—which also included hours of discussion of other topics, such as Mr. Buffett's views of the dollar, commodities and nuclear power—the 80-year-old Oracle of Omaha succeeded in placating many.

"Buffett admitted he made a mistake. The crowd forgave him," said Steven Kiel, president of Arquitos Capital Management who attended the meeting.

Some others said the CEO still hasn't adequately explained why he wasn't just as harsh a month earlier. "Buffett failed in his duty of candor" when he issued the March 30 release, said Janet Tavakoli, a financial consultant.

The statement Saturday from Mr. Sokol's lawyer, Barry Wm. Levine, said, "David Sokol is deeply saddened that Mr. Buffett, whom he considered a friend and mentor, would disparage him as he has done today." The lawyer said no new information had emerged since Mr. Buffett's earlier statement praising Mr. Sokol's "extraordinary" contributions.

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News

Warren Buffett, center, at the Berkshire shareholders meeting Saturday.

Last week a committee of Berkshire directors concluded Mr. Sokol had misled management and "violated the duty of candor he owed the company." The report said Mr. Sokol told Mr. Buffett he had become familiar with Lubrizol through owning its stock, without mentioning discussions with investment bankers.

The committee report contained "errors and omissions," Mr. Sokol's lawyer said.

Mr. Buffett on Saturday recounted an incident several years ago when Mr. Sokol turned down $12.5 million in incentive pay, and suggested the money instead go his second-in-command at Berkshire's MidAmerican Energy.

Noting that this was far above the $3 million increase in the value of Mr. Sokol's Lubrizol stake following Berkshire's deal, Mr. Buffett said, "I think 20 years from now I will not understand what causes a man to voluntarily turn away $12.5 million to an associate without getting any credit for it in the world and...then 10 or so years later buy a significant amount of stock the week before he talked to me" about an acquisition.

—Erik Holm contributed to this article.

Write to Shira Ovide at shira.ovide@wsj.com

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

More In Markets Main

Add a Comment

We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules. All comments will display your real name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Or log in or become a subscriber now for complete Journal access.

  • Clear
  • Post

Vote and Discuss

Has the insider trading trial of Raj Rajaratnam made you more cynical about investing in the stock market? If so, what are you doing to protect yourself?

Latest Tweets