Pages

A Project of Mount Rexmore Progressive Resource Center, a California Non-Profit Corporation, Rexmore.blogspot.com

Monday, January 19, 2009

MONOPOLIZATION OF THE WORLD'S CAR INDUSTRY

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009

THE BIG 3 USA CAR MAKERS:


General Motors,

sells under these brands:

Chevrolet,

Pontiac-bought 1909,

Buick—original car line of GM,

Cadillac-bought 1909,

GMC,

Saturn,

Hummer—their SUV’s are actually made by A-M General Corp. , a former division of American Motors and later LTV corp., now a separate company

GM-Daewoo-bought in 2002-in South Korea

Saab of Sweden--bought in ‘89 and 2000,

GM also owned between 2000 and 2005 up to 20% of FIAT of Italy, which sells under these brands: FIAT, Lancia, Alfa Romeo-(bought 1986 from the Italian government), Ferrari, Maserati (bought 1993, 51% owned), and Iveco trucks, while FIAT owns 6% of GM. FIAT sells 46% of all cars sold in Italy, and also owns 90% of Polish carmaker FSM.

GM also sells under these brands in Europe: Adam-Opel in Germany, Vauxhall in the UK. GM also has technology sharing agreements with Toyota, and buys engines from Honda. GM also owned Lotus for a while, but sold it in ‘93.


Discontinued car lines:

Elmore, bought 1909-halted 1912

Geo-1989-1997

LaSalle-1927-1940

Marquette-1930

Oakland-1907-1931

Oldsmobile-1897-2004

Rapid Truck-1909-1912

Reliance Truck-1909-1912

Viking-1929-1931


Former stakes in other car-makers:

Isuzu (49%)-sold in 2006,

Suzuki (9.9% sold in 2008),

and once owned Subaru (20%) of Japan.

Lotus of UK-1986 to 1993

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


Ford

#2 with 25% of the US market, sells under these brands:

Ford,

Lincoln and

Mercury,

Volvo cars of Sweden-bought in 1999,

and owns 50% of AutoLatina with VW in Brazil. Ford also has a joint venture with Navistar to build trucks in Mexico


Discontinued brand lines:

Edsel-1958-1060

Merkur-1985-1989

Aston Martin Lagonda, made in the UK,- bought in 1989, sold in 2007

Land Rover & Range Rover (bought in 2000), Jaguar, (bought in ’89), in 2008, Ford sold Land Rover and Jaguar to Tata of India

-- Formerly owned controlling share of Mazda of Japan (33.4%, cut in 2008 to 13%, along with another large shareholder, Sumitomo Bank)

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


Chrysler,

#3 in the US with 15% of the market, sells under these brands:

Jeep--bought in 1987 as part of American Motors Corp.,

Dodge,

Chrysler,

Daimler, owner of Mercedes-Benz, which is 24% owned by Deutsche Bank, bought Chrysler in 1998. Daimler also owns Freightliner trucks and Puch mopeds. In May of 2007, Daimler sells Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management for $7.4 billion, but most of the cash will go back into Chrysler, and Daimler will keep a 19% share and keep $950 million. Cerberus also controls GMAC, 51% sold 4/2006 by GM for $14 billion.


Discontinued car lines:

Maxwell-dropped in 1925

Chalmers-ended in 1923

DeSoto-1928-1961

Imperial

Eagle-1988-1998

Plymouth-1928-2001

Rambler-1950-1969

Nash-1916-1957

Hudson- to 1957

LaFayette-1920-1940

Willy’s-Overland-until 1955

Kaiser-Frazer—until 1955

Chrysler formerly owned 15% of Hyundai, selling it in 2004 (which owns Kia--bought in ‘98).

Hyundai’s first model sold in the USA was the Cortina, marketed by Ford

Mitsubishi Motors--Chrysler owned stake between 1971 and 1993 and sold their cars under Dodge brand in the USA, then between 2000 and 2005, Daimler-Chrysler owned up to 37%.

Mitsubishi also owned 10% of Hyundai until 2003

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

THE BIG FOREIGN CAR-MAKERS


Toyota, #4 in the US with 8% of sales, sells under these brands:

Toyota,

Lexus,

and Scion

--Subaru. A 16.5% stake is owned by Toyota; this stake was previously held by Nissan from 1968 to 1999, and by GM until 2005

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

Honda,

Makes the Honda and Acura brands.

It used to sell the Sterling, which was made in England by Austin-Rover, from 1987 to 1992

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

Renault, was owned by the French government from after World War 2 to 1996.

It controls:

Nissan-bought in 1999 (and owns 44% of its stock, while Nissan owns 15% of Renault),

Infiniti –launched by Nissan in 1989

Samsung Motors of South Korea-70% stake bought 1998 (not sold in US)

-beginning in 1979, Renault bought a small stake in AMC-Jeep, eventually owning 47%; Renault sold that stake in 1987 to Chrysler

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

BMW sells under these brands:

BMW,

Rolls Royce (bought ‘98),

Mini Cooper, bought in 1994 as part of Rover (Rover Cars used to be called British Leyland, and made the MG, Triumph, Austin Healey and Morris Minor; BMW sold off Rover to Ford in 2000, which sold it in 2008 to Tata Motors of India. BMW also kept the right to make a Triumph brand.)

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

Porsche bought a controlling stake in VW in 2008, they own:

VW,

Audi, bought by VW in 1964 from Daimler-Benz

Lamborghini (bought in ’98 by Audi),

Bentley (bought in ‘98,

Porsche

SEAT in Spain-bought in 1986

Skoda of the Czech republic, bought in 1991

Bugatti bought 1998

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

Daimler-Benz

Makes Mercedes-Benz

Daimler also owns Freightliner trucks and Puch mopeds.

Owned Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep from 1998 to 2007

HOW THE 4 SUPER-BANKS GOT SO BIG...

compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009
BANK OF AMERICA:
4800 branches, 15,000 ATM’s
Bought During the Bush Years: FleetBoston, MBNA, U.S. Trust, LaSalle Bank, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch
ACQUISITIONS:
Fed law change in 1956 forced spin off of Transamerica Insurance co.
Nevada N & L,
Harbor Security,
Montgomery Securities,
Robertson and Stephens,
and used to own Charles Schwab investment adviser co.-sold back to founder in 1986
1983-Seafirst
1986-Orbanco
1986-Diablo
1987-Rainier, but sold off after Security Pacific purchase due to monopoly concerns
1988-Hibernia
1989-Nevada First
1990-Gibraltar
1990-Mercury savings
1990-Mera Bank
1990-Western Savings
1990-Ben Franklin Federal Savings
1991-Southwest
1991-Security Pacific
1991-Valley Bank of Nevada
1994-Continental Illinois
1994-Arbor National
1996-Boatmen’s Bancshares
1997-Barnett Banks
1998-Nations Bank bought BofA, kept BofA name
2003-FleetBoston
2005-buys MBNA-credit card issuer
11/2006--buys U.S. Trust, a money manager, from Charles Schwab for $3.3 billion
4/2007 buys La Salle Bank Corp. From ABN Amro for $21 bil.
2007-buys Countrywide Financial
2008- buys Merrill Lynch stock brokerage

CITIGROUP:
Bought During the Bush Years: CalFed, Banamex
ACQUISITIONS:
1988- Bank of Arizona
Early 1990’s—Travelers buys Shearson Lehman Brothers, merging it into Smith Barney
1997-Salomon Brothers joins Traveler’s Group
1998-merged with Traveler’s Group brokerage and insurance co.
2000-Associates First Capital Corp
2002-CalFed/Cenfed/Glendale Federal/First Nationwide
2002-Spun off Traveler’s insurance, keeping brokerage and financial service divisions
2009-Citi to put Smith Barney in joint venture with Morgan Stanley (keeping 49% stake)
Grupo Financial Banamex, (#1 in Mexico)
Diner’s Club,
Carte Blanche credit card
Franklin Fund

WELLS FARGO

Bought During the Bush Years: Wachovia Bank
ACQUISITIONS:
1986-Crocker-Citizens purchased from Midland Bank of UK
1987-Allied Bancshares
1988-Barclays Bank of California
1989-American National Bank
1989-Valley National Bank
1990-Great American Savings branches in Calif
1994-Bank of A. Levy
1996- First Interstate
1998-Norwest-actually, Norwest bought Wells Fargo and kept the Wells name,
1/2007-buys Placer Sierra Bancshares-based in Sacramento area-50 branches
5/2007-- buys Greater Bay Bancorp (SF bay area) for $1.5 bil, has 41 branches.
2008-buys Wachovia, which had taken over First Union, Corestates, First Atlanta, Jefferson National, Central Fidelity, 1st United Bancorp, American Bancshares, Republic Security, Southtrust, Prudential Financial, Metropolitan West Securities, Westcorp, Golden West Financial, World Savings Bank, A.G. Edwards
Homefed Bank,

J.P. MORGAN CHASE AND COMPANY
Bought During the Bush Years: BankOne, Bear Stearns brokerage, Washington Mutual
ACQUISITIONS:
1986-Texas Commerce Bancshares bought by Chemical Bank
1991-Manufacturer’s Hanover bought by Chemical Bank
1994-Margaretten Financial
1995-Chemical Bank buys Chase Manhattan, renamed Chase
1999-Hambrecht & Quist
2000-Chase bought J.P. Morgan and Co.
2004-Bank One/First Chicago/City National
2006-Collegiate Funding Services
2008--bought Bear Stearns stock brokerage
Chase Mellon Shareholder Services???,
--2008, bought WASHINGTON MUTUAL
ACQUISITIONS:
1986-Leucadia National
1986-Southern Home Savings
1987-First Commercial Savings
1987-Bowery Savings
1997-Great Western Savings
1997-Coast Federal
1998-Home Savings
2005-Providian National Bank
American Savings,
some branches of Western Federal and Household Bank
-------------------------------
SOME BANKING STATS:
market share of banks in L.A. area


there is $7 trillion in deposits in FDIC insured institutions

total deposits of bank holding cos. As of 6/30/2008
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 6,146 branches $701 billion
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 3,195 branches $497 billion
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY/WACHOVIA 6741 branches $715 billion
CITIGROUP INC. 1,079 branches $271 billion
Which totals $2.184 trillion or 31% of all deposits are in the top 4
(the FDIC does not list deposits for WaMu, so most likely they are counted in JPM’s total)

at time of WaMu takeover by JPMorgan Chase, WaMu had $188 billion in deposits

number of offices in L.A. MSA—top 4 have 1142 branches out of 2481 total in L.A. metro area, or 46% of branch offices are the top 4 banks, BofA, WaMu, Wells-Wachovia and Citibank (JP Morgan not in the list as no presence in L.A.)

Temasek Holdings, owned by the government of Singapore, owned Merrill Lynch. When ML was sold to BofA, Temasek and the government of Singapore become a big owner of BofA. (America’s largest bank!)

Aerospace and Defense Contractors

Consolidation of Control of U.S.Defense Contractors


compiled by Rex Frankel, 1/19/2009


One interesting stat: 7 of the top 10 USA defense contractors in 1995 are now owned by the top 3, Lockheed, Northop and Boeing.


http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/complex/top15.html list the top 10 in 1998


ACQUISITION HISTORIES:


LOCKHEED MARTIN:

1994-Martin-Marietta

1996 Loral

Defense-contracting divisions of:

1983-Xerox

1987-Goodyear

1987-Gould

1989-Fairchild

1989-Honeywell

1990-Ford

1992-LTV

1992-GE-RCA aerospace divisions

1993-General Dynamics’ Atlas rocket division

1993-IBM

1995-Unisys


NORTHROP GRUMMAN:

Bought During the Bush Years: TRW

1994 Vought Aircraft

1994 Teledyne’s Electronics Systems

1994-Northop bought Grumman

1996 Sperry Marine

1996 Westinghouse defense division

1997 Logicon

2000 Litton

2000 Newport News Shipbuilding

2002 TRW


BOEING:

1960 Vertol helicopters

1984 Hughes Helicopters

1996 McDonnell Douglas

1996 Rockwell Defense and Aerospace (owned North American Aircraft which was originally spun-off by GM in 1948)

1997 Argo Systems

2000 Hughes Space and Communications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boeing_History_Timeline.PNG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing

Boeing once owned United Airlines and United Technologies in the 1930’s

Boeing sold the Rocketdyne rocket engine division to Pratt & Whitney in 2005

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

THE SMALLER DEFENSE CONTRACTORS:


RAYTHEON:

Beech Aircraft

1992 General Dynamics’ missile division

1995 Magnavox aerospace division

1996 Chrysler defense division

1997 Hughes Aircraft (from GM)

1997 Texas Instruments missile and defense division

2006 sells Hawker and Beechcraft airplane divisions to Goldman Sachs/Onex Partners for $3.3.bil.

At one time, Raytheon owned Amana Radarange ovens (sold to Maytag) and made Speed Queen washing machines—sold 1998 by Raytheon to Alliance Laundry Systems


GENERAL ELECTRIC

2001—had U.S. OK to buy Honeywell but European Union killed deal

1/2007-Buys Smiths Group aircraft control systems unit for $4.8 bil.

5/2007 sells GE Plastics for $11.6 bil to Saudi Basic Industries corp.


TELEDYNE:

Continental Engines

Brown Engineering


GENERAL DYNAMICS:

1982 Chrysler combat systems

1995 Bath Iron Works shipyard

1997 Acquired Lockheed Martin Defense Systems and Lockheed Martin Armament Systems

1998 National Steel and Shipbuilding

1999 Gulfstream Aerospace

2002 General Motors’ armored vehicle division

2003 Veridian Corp.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES:

Pratt & Whitney

Hamilton Sundstrand

Sikorsky Helicopters

1975-Otis Elevator

1979-Carrier Refrigeration

1999-Sundstrand

2001-Chubb Security

2004-Schweitzer Aircraft-2004

2005-Kidde

2005-Rocketdyne


TOSHIBA:

Westinghouse nuclear plant division


EADS (Eurpoean Aeronautic Defence and Space) formed in 2000 bymerger of top European aerospace firms:

Daimler-Benz aerospace

Aerospatial Matra

Marconi Electronics

Airbus

Arianespace

Fokker


TEXTRON:

Avco

Bell Helicopter

1992- Cessna (bought from General Dynamics)

Lycoming


GENCORP:

Aerojet General (rocket and missile propulsion)


HONEYWELL:

1999 merged with Allied-Signal

HOW THE 5 BIG OIL COMPANIES GOT SO BIG:

1/19/2009

compiled by Rex Frankel


British Petroleum (major brand name in USA is ARCO):

competitors bought out:

1969-Sinclair oil

1968-SOHIO merged with BP, BP took full ownership in 1987.

1988-Britoil

1988-Dome of Canada-bought by Amoco

1998-Union Texas Petroleum

1998-Amoco (Standard of Indiana

1999-Arco

2000-Burmah-Castrol

Gulf stations in 8 SE USA states,

also has joint refining and marketing venture with Mobil in Europe.


Chevron-Texaco:

Bought During the Bush Years: Texaco, Unocal

competitors bought out:

1984-Gulf Oil bought by Chevron,

1984-Getty Oil –bought by Texaco, causing a disastrous lawsuit for Texaco filed by Pennzoil

1997-Monterey Resources--(was originally spun-off by Santa Fe Energy in ‘96),

2001-Texaco

2005-Unocal

Dynegy-owns electrical power plants-26.5%,


Conoco-Phillips:

Conoco was formerly owned by DuPont Chemical co., bought in 1981 and spun off in 1998

Bought During the Bush Years: Phillips Petroleum

competitors bought out:

2001--Phillips bought Tosco (The Oil and Shale Corporation), which had bought western US division of Unocal and 76 stations in 1997; Tosco owned Circle-K stores and gas stations-which they bought in 1996, then sold in 2003 to Alimentation Couche-Tard of France.

2001-Gulf Canada Resource

2002-Phillips 66-merged with Conoco,

2006-Burlington Resources—was formerly oil division of Burlington Northern Railroad co.

BP stations in N. Calif.,

Alaska oil fields formerly owned by Arco,


Exxon-Mobil

competitors bought out:

1987-Celeron pipelines-from Goodyear Tire co.,

1989-Texaco Canada

1999-Exxon merged with Mobil Oil

Imperial/Esso in Canada,

joint venture in Calif. Oil fields with Shell, called Aera Energy


Royal-Dutch Shell:

Bought During the Bush Years: Pennzoil

competitors bought out:

1979-Belridge Oil

2001-Texaco’s refining and marketing division in USA

2002-Pennzoil/Jiffy Lube/Quaker State/Slick-50

European joint refining and marketing venture with Texaco.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

-
Watch Out for Sky-High Cell Phone Bills from Internet-Connected Phones!


Cell Phone Bills that Truly Roam
1/7/2009 L.A. Times

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=2531&topicId=100015123&start=1&docId=l:907450862


Not long after I returned from a recent trip to Canada, I was surprised to find a $400 cellphone bill in the mailbox. This seemed odd because I'd made only two phone calls when I was there, the longer one for 15 minutes.But when I looked closer at the breakdown, I saw what was going on. It wasn't I who'd been making dozens of long-distance calls back to the States -- it was the phone itself. While I thought my iPhone was sitting "unused" in my jacket, it had been constantly checking my e-mail for 72 straight hours. You see, using a data-enabled cellphone in a foreign land has become a little like falling asleep on a train in Naples -- if you're not careful, you could end up with empty pockets. And if you ever have, you know the feeling. "Shock, fear, panic," said Mike Cottmeyer, a software consultant in Suwanee, Ga., referring to an $800 iPhone data bill he'd been hit with after visiting Toronto for a few days last year. "It kind of makes you sick to your stomach."The roaming ripoff stems from a sad new kind of Catch-22: With all the contracts, agreements and stipulations we've signed on for, there's more fine print than ever and less time to read it. And like a high schooler's nightmare, if you fail to memorize everything, you could be in big trouble.For an idea of how easy it is for travelers to rack up a nauseating data bill, consider that most phone companies charge roaming customers about two cents per kilobyte. How much is that? Well, your average e-mail message might be 10 kb. So that's around 20 cents per e-mail. Not instantly fatal.Well, what if someone sends you a message with a snapshot in it --that might run a megabyte or two (about 2,000 kb). So while the picture of your nephew in his first snowstorm might be priceless in one sense, in another it just cost you 40 bucks.But even that is child's play. The real action comes when travelers use their phones to surf the Web or watch videos -- both of which can consume thousands of times more data than checking e-mail. The blogosphere is littered with ghastly tales of "bill shock" over such unanticipated fees, like the American who visited London for two weeks, bringing his Web-enabled iPhone, not a laptop, for all computing needs. The price tag on that bit of light traveling? $3,000.Then there was the Briton who, while vacationing in Portugal, decided to download an episode of "Prison Break" to his cellphone. The guy ended up owing close to $60,000. Most of the really galactic fees -- like this one -- end up being partially refunded. When I complained, mine was too -- but it took me 20 minutes of arguing with the customer service rep, more than most people would likely bother with."You get this false-positive feeling of comfort," said Gerry Purdy, an Atlanta-based mobile communications analyst for the consulting firm Frost & Sullivan. "You get off the airplane and say, hey, the phone works? And my e-mail's coming? That's great."But unwitting consumers and Web columnists don't realize they've been silently shifted to a new set of much more expensive "roaming" rates that are, as Purdy put it, "almost insane."You might wonder if sending all this data around the world costs the telecoms that much money. But consider your home broadband connection, a kind of all-you-can-eat buffet that allows you to scarf down as many Web pages, photos, songs and movies as you can in one month. All for about $40 -- about the same as what they charged you for that pic of your nephew in the snow.If you had to pay that kind of price for every byte of your monthlong smorgasbord of home broadband, you'd probably be paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So wherefore the discrepancy? AT&T, the only telecom that offers the data-hungry iPhone, won't say whether the roaming rates reflect the real cost of keeping users connected internationally. A spokesman wrote only that "roaming fees are established by the carriers whose networks are available to our customers while traveling abroad" and that "AT&T must pay these fees to the carrier per the agreement."This response sidesteps the rather obvious fact that AT&T is itself an international service provider -- charging roaming fees to visiting foreigners -- and therefore knows precisely how much or rather how little data transfer costs.For a hint at the real answer, we can look to the European Union, which recently agreed to caps on both the price of text messages -- about 14 cents U.S. -- and the price of data: 1 euro, or about $1.50, per megabyte, more than 10 times less than what AT&T and other U.S. telecoms charge for roaming.Our own Federal Communications Commission declined to comment on the issue, noting only that if consumers have a problem with roaming charges, they should send complaints.Frustrated with "unbelievable" roaming costs, Howard Thaw of Nova Scotia has found ways to scrimp when traveling with his iPhone. For one: Make sure you use it near a wireless connection point -- at a Starbucks, say, so you can access the Web without always hearing a cash register. But as Thaw noted, that sort of "defeats the purpose of what the phone was designed to do" -- i.e., work anywhere.Thaw speculated on the mentality behind the pricing: "If you can afford an iPhone," he said, "why shouldn't you be able to afford the data charges, especially if you're traveling on business and you have a company paying?"Cottmeyer, the software consultant from Georgia, did exactly that. Admitting he should have read the fine print, he gritted his teeth and expensed the $800 charge. "Did I feel like it was fair? Absolutely not. But I didn't feel like I had a leg to stand on."Cottmeyer's boss told him not to let it happen again and asked him to write a warning memo about it for his colleagues. The post is online at Cottmeyer's blog, LeadingAgile.com, if anyone, including the FCC, would like to read it.

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Could No One See this Coming?


Moral Hazard--the Financial Industry's term for Fraud


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Hazard



Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company.



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



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3



On Ex-Senator Phil Gramm, who was John McCain’s financial advisor:



He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine the financial markets. He advanced legislation that fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and reach of financial conglomerates.



And he pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world…



In the final days of the Clinton administration a year later, Mr. Gramm celebrated another triumph. Determined to close the door on any future regulation of the emerging market of derivatives and swaps, he helped pushed through legislation that accomplished that goal.



Created to help companies and investors limit risk, swaps are contracts that typically work like a form of insurance. A bank concerned about rises in interest rates, for instance, can buy a derivatives instrument that would protect it from rate swings. Credit-default swaps, one type of derivative, could protect the holder of a mortgage security against a possible default.



Earlier laws had left the regulation issue sufficiently ambiguous, worrying Wall Street, the Clinton administration and lawmakers of both parties, who argued that too many restrictions would hurt financial activity and spur traders to take their business overseas. And while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — under the leadership of Mr. Gramm’s wife, Wendy — had approved rules in 1989 and 1993 exempting some swaps and derivatives from regulation, there was still concern that step was not enough….



Mr. Gramm helped lead the charge in Congress. Demanding even more freedom from regulators than the financial industry had sought, he persuaded colleagues and negotiated with senior administration officials, pushing so hard that he nearly scuttled the deal. “When I get in the red zone, I like to score,” Mr. Gramm told reporters at the time.



Finally, he had extracted enough. In December 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed as part of a larger bill by unanimous consent after Mr. Gramm dominated the Senate debate.


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



WHAT ARE DERIVATIVES?



http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/derivatives/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier


Derivatives are financial instruments that were created to reduce risk, and their use on Wall Street is known as hedging. In recent years, however, as their prevalence and complexity ballooned, they have created new kinds of risk and have played a major role in the meltdown of the world's financial system.


Their name comes from the fact that their value “derives” from underlying assets like stocks, bonds and commodities.



One of the easiest ways to understand derivatives is to consider an early example -- traders in Chicago in the 19th century buying corn futures. A contract that guaranteed a certain amount of corn at a certain price at a date in the future helped reduce the risk the trader faced, since he would have some protection if prices rose. But that future also had a value in and of itself, one that rose and fell with the price of corn -- when prices went up, a contract for corn at a cheap price was worth more. So futures were traded as avidly as corn.



The most common types of derivatives are futures; forwards, which are futures traded outside of a regular exchange; options, which are the right to buy or sell something at a specified date and price; and swaps, contracts involving an exchange of assets or payments.



In recent years, a bewildering variety of derivatives have been developed. Two types that have played a central role in the recent turmoil are mortgage-backed securities, whose value depends on the value of the mortgages, which depends on how many of them are being paid off, and credit default swaps, which are in essence a form of insurance policy, and whose value swings with the fiscal health of the transaction or asset it is written to cover.



The derivatives market today is $531 trillion, up from $106 trillion in 2002 and a relative pittance just two decades ago. Theoretically intended to limit risk and ward off financial problems, the contracts instead have stoked uncertainty and actually spread risk amid doubts about how companies value them.


The contracts allowed financial services firms and corporations to take more complex risks that they might have otherwise avoided — for example, issuing questionable mortgages or excessive corporate debt. The fact that they can be traded in one sense limited risk but also increased the number of parties exposed when problems emerged.



Throughout the 1990s, some argued that derivatives had become so vast, intertwined and inscrutable that they required federal oversight to protect the financial system. But the financial industry lobbied heavily against such measures, and won backing from important figures, including Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to early 2006.


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



WHAT ARE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS?



http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_default_swaps/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier


Credit default swaps, which were invented by Wall Street in the late 1990's, are financial instruments that are intended to cover losses to banks and bondholders when a particular bond or security goes into default -- that is, when the stream of revenue behind the loan becomes insufficient to meet the payments that were promised.



In essence, it is a form of insurance. Its purpose is to make it easier for banks to issue complex debt securities by reducing the risk to purchasers, just like the way the insurance a movie producer takes out on a wayward star makes it easier to raise money for the star's next picture.



Here is a more detailed, but still simplified explanation of how they work, given by Michael Lewitt, a Florida money manager, in a New York Times Op-Ed piece on Sept. 16, 2008:


"Credit default swaps are a type of credit insurance contract in which one party pays another party to protect it from the risk of default on a particular debt instrument. If that debt instrument (a bond, a bank loan, a mortgage) defaults, the insurer compensates the insured for his loss.



"The insurer (which could be a bank, an investment bank or a hedge fund) is required to post collateral to support its payment obligation, but in the insane credit environment that preceded the credit crisis, this collateral deposit was generally too small.


"As a result, the credit default market is best described as an insurance market where many of the individual trades are undercapitalized."



The market for the credit default swaps has been enormous. Since 2000, it has ballooned from $900 billion to more than $45.5 trillion — roughly twice the size of the entire United States stock market. Also in sharp contrast to traditional insurance, the swaps are totally unregulated.


When the mortgage-backed securities that many swaps were supporting began to lose value in 2007, investors began to fear that the swaps, originally meant as a hedge against risk, could suddenly become huge liabilities.



The swaps' complexity and the lack of information in an unregulated market added to the market's anxiety. Bond insurers like MBNA and Ambac that had written large amounts of the swaps saw their shares plunge in late 2007.



Credit default swaps also played an integral role in the federal government's decision to bail out the American International Group, one of the world's largest insurers, in September 2008. The Federal Reserve concluded that if A.I.G. failed and defaulted on its swaps, throwing the liability for the insured securities onto the swaps' counterparties, the result could be a daisy chain of failures across the international financial system.


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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap



A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties. The buyer makes periodic payments (premium leg) to the seller, and in return receives a payoff (protection or default leg) if an underlying financial instrument defaults.[1] CDS contracts have been compared to insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if a specified event occurs. However, there are a number of differences between CDS and insurance; the buyer of a CDS does not need to own the underlying security; in fact the buyer does not even have to suffer a loss from the default event.[2][3][4]



A credit default swap (CDS) is a swap contract in which the buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if a credit instrument (typically a bond or loan) goes into default or on the occurrence of a specified credit event (for example bankruptcy or restructuring). Credit Default Swaps can be bought by any (relatively sophisticated) investor; it is not necessary for the buyer to own the underlying credit instrument.[5]



…Credit default swaps are often used to manage the credit risk (ie the risk of default) which arises from holding debt. Typically, the holder of, for example, a corporate bond may hedge their exposure by entering into a CDS contract as the buyer of protection. If the bond goes into default, the proceeds from the CDS contract will cancel out the losses on the underlying bond.



…Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JPMorgan Chase[7][8]. Credit Default Swaps became legal, and illegal to regulate, with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. They were introduced and rushed through congress as a companion bill, the last day before the Christmas holiday. It was never debated in the House or the Senate. The bill was 11,000 pages long. Less than a week after it was passed by congress, President Clinton signed it into Public Law (106-554) on December 21, 2000.



…For example, at the time it filed for bankruptcy on 14 September 2008, Lehman Brothers had approximately $155 billion of outstanding debt[21] but around $400 billion notional value of CDS contracts had been written which referenced this debt.[22]



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


http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/60-minutes-bets-brought-down-wall-st


As Steve Kroft reports, essentially they are side bets on the performance of the U.S. mortgage markets and the solvency on some of the biggest financial institutions in the world. It's a form of legalized gambling that allows you to wager on financial outcomes without ever having to actually buy the stocks and bonds and mortgages.


It would have been illegal during most of the 20th century, but eight years ago Congress gave Wall Street an exemption and it has turned out to be a very bad idea.



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



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml


“Think of it for a moment as a football game. Every week, the New York Giants take the field with hopes of getting back to the Super Bowl. If they do, they will get more money and glory for the team and its owners. They have a direct investment in the game. But the people in the stands may also have a financial stake in the ouctome, in the form of a bet with a friend or a bookie.

"We could call that a derivative. It's a side bet. We don't own the teams. But we have a bet based on the outcome. And a lot of derivatives are bets based on the outcome of games of a sort. Not football games, but games in the markets," Partnoy explains.

Partnoy says the bet was whether interest rates were going to go up or down. "And the new bet that arose over the last several years is a bet based on whether people will default on their mortgages.”



Dinallo says credit default swaps were totally unregulated and that the big banks and investment houses that sold them didn't have to set aside any money to cover their potential losses and pay off their bets.

"As the market began to seize up and as the market for the underlying obligations began to perform poorly, everybody wanted to get paid, had a right to get paid on those credit default swaps. And there was no 'there' there. There was no money behind the commitments. And people came up short. And so that's to a large extent what happened to Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, and the holding company of AIG," he explains. …

In other words, three of the nation's largest financial institutions had made more bad bets than they could afford to pay off. Bear Stearns was sold to J.P. Morgan for pennies on the dollar, Lehman Brothers was allowed to go belly up, and AIG, considered too big to let fail, is on life support to thanks to a $123 billion investment by U.S. taxpayers.

Friday, October 17, 2008


Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both say they’ll cut federal taxes if elected. Here’s what their proposals would mean for you.


Obama McCain
If you make... you'd
save...
you'd
save...
less than $19,000 $567 $21
$19,000-$37,600 $892 $118
$37,600-$66,400 $1118 $325
$66,400-$111,600 $1264 $994
$111,600-$161,000 $2135 $2584

$161,000-$227,000

$2796

$4437

If you're in the top 5% of earners... you'd pay
an extra...
you'd
save...
$227,000-$603,400 $121 $8159
$603,400-$2.87 million $93,709 $48,862
more than $2.87 million $542,882 $290,708

*Source: Tax Policy Center. Numbers have been rounded. For complete details, go to TaxPolicyCenter.org.


If your annual salary is less than $112,000, you’d pay less in taxes under Obama’s plan; if your salary is higher, McCain would cut your taxes more. “While the aggregate tax cut is bigger for McCain, a larger number of voters get more money under Obama,” says Alan Viard, a tax-policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Obama is choosing to emphasize tax cuts for the middle class, whereas McCain’s strategy is to keep rates lower at the top as a way to facilitate long-run growth.” For example, a person with an income of $1 million could see his taxes increase under Obama by as much as $94,000, whereas under McCain’s plan he could save about $48,000.

— Rebecca Davis O'Brien

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Monday, August 18, 2008

-----
Moron-Math Used to Claim Exxon-Mobil is Overtaxed


8/18/2008

When oil-industry propagandists try to fool the public into showing sympathy for the greedy oil monopolies, they lately cite the high taxes the oil companies pay. What???

Exxon-Mobil profits are up 70% in the most recent three-month sales report. But a recent soundbite says that in the last 3 months, "Exxon paid almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion)".

Certainly the U.S. government doesn't charge income taxes at a 75% rate. So what are these guys talking about?

And since Exxon's total revenue was $138 billion and the taxes they paid were $32 billion, they are not even paying a 33% tax rate!!

Doing the math, there's $106 billion of other money that flowed through Exxon during those three months, and most of it they don't call "profit". Yeah, some of it was to pay the suppliers of the crude oil; of course, they are also the supplier of a lot of that oil.

I'd sure like to tell the the IRS that about my small business.


According to CNN, http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073109

"The company returned $10.1 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, 12% more than last year."

This doesn't count as a profit for the company. The shareholders pay the taxes on it instead.

And a lot of those taxes are not really "paid" by the company.

The oilmeisters love to whine a lot about gas taxes being the problem. For example, $9.5 billion of the taxes Exxon paid in that quarter were sales taxes which the company merely extracts from consumers and then passes onto the government. And of course, that gas tax goes to pay for roads, which keeps us all driving and buying their gas.

Of course, our ever-non vigilant media always fails to reveal that while the price of a barrel of oil has zoomed, the profit for refining that barrel has also zoomed. The "refining margin" is a forgotten statistic, and that profit goes only to the USA oil monopolies, not to some "foreigners" who are ripping off Americans.

How much of the spike in oil prices has really gone to other countries, and how much has been grabbed by the big-5 worldwide oil monopolies?

I wish someone would report that.

--Rex Frankel

---------------------------
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2459357&title=Exxon_Posts_Record.html

Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.
That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

Buried in the story we also find that "In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called 'other taxes.'"

MP: In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second. Another way to look at it - Exxon paid almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion), see chart above.

--------------------
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073109
7/31/2008

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.

That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

That barely beat the previous corporate record of $11.66 billion, also set by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2007.

"The fundamentals of our business remain strong," Henry Hubble, Exxon's vice president of investor relations, said on a conference call. "We continue to capture the benefit of strong industry conditions."

But Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) profit fell short of Wall Street estimates.

Analysts predicted the company, the world's largest publicly traded oil firm, would make $12.1 billion in profit on $144.4 billion in revenue, according to Thomson Reuters.

Exxon shares fell about 3% on the New York Stock Exchange.

Excluding money set aside for a recent damage award related to the Valdez tanker spill back in 1989, Exxon made $11.97 billion in the quarter.

Pricey oil cuts both ways

Exxon was both helped and hurt by high oil prices.

As an oil producer, the company makes a lot of money when crude prices rise. Exxon made $10 billion from selling oil in the latest quarter, up nearly 70%.

But as a refiner, it must also buy crude oil to turn into gasoline. Exxon actually buys more crude than it sells.

Profits from its refining business totaled $1.6 billion in the quarter, less than half of what they were last year.

"Record crude oil and natural gas realizations were partly offset by lower refining and chemical margins, lower production volumes and higher operating costs," read a statement attributed to Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chief executive.

While oil prices in the quarter were nearly twice as high as the same time last year, gasoline prices only rose about 30%.

That's one reason why the stock of major oil companies - such as Exxon, Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) and BP (BP) - that both produce and refine crude has been relatively flat over the last year, despite the runup in oil prices.

Meanwhile, shares of companies that mostly produce oil, like Anadarko and Apache, have soared in the last year, while shares in refiners like Valero and Sunoco have tumbled.

Where the money goes

Exxon spent $7 billion in the second quarter finding and producing more new oil, up 38% from last year. Still, oil and natural gas production from the company fell 8%. Even excluding special events such as a labor strike in Nigeria and seizure of fields in Venezuela, production slipped 3%.

The production declines shouldn't be seen as an indicator the world is running out of oil, said Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer.

Rather, as the price of oil rises, the amount of oil Exxon or any international oil firm is allowed to pump from many oil-rich countries decreases, said Gheit.

"We didn't expect production to be down as much as reported," he said. "But that doesn't mean [worldwide] production is down, just that Exxon's share is decreasing."

The company returned $10.1 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, 12% more than last year.

On an earnings-per-share basis, Exxon made $2.22. That was still lower than analysts had expected, but 24% higher than last year, a gain Exxon attributed to its aggressive stock buyback plan.

The big international oil companies have been criticized for plowing much of their profits back into stock buybacks and other programs to benefit shareholders, as opposed to exploring for more oil which could bring down the price of crude for everyone.

"While oil companies are earning record profits and gas prices are soaring, the largest oil companies have invested more resources in stock buybacks than U.S. production," said Congressional Democrats in a press release shortly after Exxon announced its earnings.

Other critics charge the oil companies with deliberately restricting production in an attempt to keep prices high.

The industry says it's investing as much as it can in finding new oil, but is having a hard time given the shortage of workers and equipment in the sector.

Recent efforts by countries such as Russia, Venezuela and Kazakhstan to gain greater control of their own domestic oil resources have also hampered the ability of international oil companies to increase production.

In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."

Political backlash

With Americans paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, oil company earnings have been political fodder of late.

Congressional Democrats said they are having a conference later in the day to call for an end to tax breaks for big oil firms.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to enact a "windfall" profits tax on these earnings, or at the very least eliminate manufacturing tax exemption oil companies now enjoy. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wants to tax oil companies at a special rate every time crude goes over $80 a barrel.

Most plans would either use this newfound tax money to fund investments in renewable energy, or give it to low income Americans struggling with high energy prices.

But so far those efforts have been blocked - mainly by Republicans - who say raising taxes on oil companies will only discourage investments in finding new oil and raise the price of crude.

Defenders of oil company profits also point out that their profit margin, at around 8%, is slightly below average for S&P 500 companies, and far below the 20%-plus margins seen at companies such as Microsoft or Pfizer.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

-----

Giving “Choice” to a Captive Audience is bad for media behemoths:

The USA’s Biggest Radio monopolies are selling off stations, But sticking with their monopoly on billboards…

With the public turning to digital music players and podcasts, they can avoid the homogenized, ad-packed, junk-radio formats that litter the AM and FM dials in most cities. What they can’t miss, though, are the sky-blocking billboards owned by the same radio behemoths. During the late 1990’s, two corporations went on a deregulation-fueled radio and billboard buying spree. The two, CBS and Clear Channel, loaded up on debt to buy these speculation-steroid-enhanced properties. The results are mixed. CBS has done well, as it is insulated by its holdings in TV and publishing.

Clear Channel, on the other hand, which made its name in the early years of the Bush administration as the home of Rush Limbaugh and countless other right-wing radio hotheads, has lost a ton of someone’s (?) money. Their zeal to buy up radio stations led them to own over 1200 across the U.S. CBS, the next largest owner at its peak had 180 stations. Clear Channel reported losses totaling $21 billion in 2002 and 2005 due to the true value of their radio empire becoming evident, and they have sold off their 56 TV stations and are trying to sell off over 400 radio stations in smaller USA markets. Clear Channel was recently sold to several investment groups for $17.9 billion, after a $19.5 billion deal fell through.

With the economy in the dumper lately, a lot of the USA media are fighting themselves for market share—ah, yes, competition, we haven’t seen that for a while. As the internet has gobbled up ads from daily newspapers, we are seeing hard times for the daily papers that have largely served up corporate press releases to their readers masquerading as news.

Most important to the media monopolies is a “captive” audience. This is when we have over 100 cable channels available to us, but most of them are owned by the 5 media monopolies (CBS/Viacom, GE, Time-Warner, Fox and Disney). For daily newspapers, in most cities in the USA we have only one choice. For radio, the listeners and ad revenues are monopolized by CBS and Clear Channel, who each have 8 radio stations in L.A., for example. The big profit is in the audience having no alternative, and therefore, we are captive watchers or listeners. For example, when I tune into the 6 L.A. rock music stations, and a commercial block comes on, when I switch stations, guess what? They and all the other rock stations are playing commercials, too. Is this coincidence or collusion?

Thanks to my digital music player, I can pack my entire music collection in a little box. I really don’t miss the inane, pre-recorded chatter. I can always look away from the billboards, unless I’m stuck in the gridlocked traffic.

But that’s another rant…

---by Rex Frankel

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

CBS to sell 50 of its radio stations:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cbs1-2008aug01,0,6157912.story

August 1, 2008

“The New York-based broadcasting company, controlled by billionaire Sumner Redstone, said Thursday that it planned to sell 50 radio stations in a dozen mid-size markets as ad revenue continued to slide in a weak economy. The company's once-mighty radio division continued to produce static and a drag on the company's earnings…

…Just two years ago, CBS Radio boasted nearly 180 radio stations. It has since shed about 40 stations, and with the planned sale of 50 more, the company would cut its holdings to about 90 stations. Included on its roster are Los Angeles powerhouse AM stations KNX 1070 and KFWB 980.

Analyst Tom Taylor said CBS might look to sell stations in such markets as Sacramento, Riverside and Las Vegas to focus on big-market stations that produce greater revenue. The loss of Howard Stern, who defected to satellite radio, continues to be felt, he said.”

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/797894/clear_channel_sells_radio_stations_to_rincon_for_173_million/index.html

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

...Thought Oil Companies Put their Huge Profits into Finding New Supplies of Oil? Think Again:


Where Big Oil's profits go

By John Porretto, The Associated Press
7/21/2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/21/financial/f140139D71.DTL&feed=rss.business

HOUSTON - As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what are expected to be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?

The companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.

It's good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel.
The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

Growing profits

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn't stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion - nine times what it spent on exploration.
Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.
"If you're not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there's no new oil," said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who's studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

State-run oil companies, like those in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, control about 80percent of oil reserves - and at today's prices, it's not surprising they're keeping a tight grip on what they have. Scarce equipment and hard-to-find labor also pose problems.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.
"It becomes a management decision," said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's. "It's not like they're going to the board and saying, `Well, I can do one or the other or the other.' The balance sheets are flush with cash."

The companies say they are doing what they can to find more fossil fuels around the world, but the easy oil is gone. Exploring these days may mean expensive projects in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico or costly ventures pulling petroleum from Canada's vast oil-sands deposits.

TransCanada Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. just said they'd spend $7 billion to nearly double the amount of crude flowing through a pipeline from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Analysts point out that because there's no guarantee prices will stay high, oil companies should approach exploration projects with caution.

Lag time involved

"There's only so much money you can throw at it without being ridiculous," said Joseph Stanislaw, a senior adviser to Deloitte LLP's Energy & Resources practice. "I think they're doing what they can."

It's also important to remember it can take several years before a company produces the first barrel of oil from a new field.

One example is an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico called Thunder Horse. Operated by BP and partly owned by Exxon Mobil, the platform only last month began producing oil and gas - nine years after the field's discovery.

At its peak, the multibillion-dollar project is designed to produce 250,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas each day, which would make it the Gulf's largest producer.
"When you look at the spending that's going on, the companies are bringing on a lot of long-term discoveries," said John Parry, a senior analyst with John S. Herold Inc.

At ConocoPhillips, the capital spending budget for 2008, which includes exploration and production, is $15.3 billion, more than double the spending of five years ago.

"Could we spend $20 billion or $25 billion? Absolutely," spokesman Gary Russell said. "Could we do it effectively, in a way that provides ultimate value to our shareholders? Probably not."

Exxon Mobil has drawn criticism for its reluctance to invest in alternative energy sources like wind and solar power.

Monday, April 21, 2008

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

Cree Indian proverb



Feds Continue the Coverup of The Enron/Bush Greed scandal


It's Time to Mess With Texas...



A Guide to Corporate Welfare...

When our government does something to help the less fortunate in this country, there's always a chorus of so-called experts on the TV who call that "welfare for the undeserving." Most of the time, however, it seems our government prefers to take care of the needs of big corporations, which buy and sell most politicians from our major political parties. And yet, it's hard to find one of TV's alleged experts who will criticize the billions of dollars our government gives away each year to these big corporations. The corporate-owned media blacks out this information because they're also big recipients of corporate welfare....

continued...Corporations Give to Politicians; Politicians Give to Corporations...

Who's the Pirate Here?

From the hundreds protesting in Prague, the thousands protesting in Davos and Jakarta, and the tens of thousands protesting in Seattle, it is clear that people are fed up with the forces of economic domination and the increasing concentration of wealth. Anger is expressed with nonviolent vigils, vitriolic slogans, and broken windows. It is an anger born from the feelings of powerlessness in the face of a planetary machine trying to pave the world. Take heart. Just as every action produces its own reaction, the extreme of global corporatism fuels its own demise. There is already an effective economic response to global corporatism and its many official arms, including the WTO. This response is technologically sophisticated, worth untold billions of dollars, is grass roots oriented, and is gaining strength. It is considered illegal, even evil, in the eyes of global corporatism and its puppet national governments. However, there is a good chance you already participate in this economic enterprise.

It is the Pirate Economy.

The world's pirates are actively turning the tables on those with monopoly power. They are the lightest, quickest, least bureaucratic, most democratic, and--most importantly-most market-driven sector of our economy. In a world of corporate dinosaurs, the pirates are the rats feasting on dinosaur eggs...

Who's the Pirate Here? continued...


Wednesday, March 26, 2008

-----
Overvalued and Generally Evil, Clear Channel is in Trouble....


(next to Fox, the biggest media backer of the Bush regime)

Clear Channel, private equity firms sue banks
Radio and billboard company claims five banks renege on promise to finance$19.5 billion buyout.
March 26, 2008

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/news/companies/clear_channel/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular

SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- Clear Channel Communications Inc. and the private equity firms seeking to close a $19.5 billion purchase of the company on Wednesday sued the banks backing the deal.

In lawsuits filed in Texas and New York, Clear Channel and the buyers group, led by Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners LLC, claimed the six banks that promised to finance the deal were reneging on the agreement to provide long-term financing, looking to offer little more than a short-term bridge loan.

"The lenders agreed to provide long-term financing," said Alex Stanton, a Bain spokesman. "They now have lenders' remorse because the credit markets have been difficult."
The lenders, which include Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group, The Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank AG and Wachovia Corp., signed commitments when the deal was inked 18 months ago saying they would bear all the risk in changes to the debt market.

In that time, it has become more difficult for the banks to resell the loans so -- instead of sticking with the minimum six years of financing -- the lenders had sought to provide only a short-term loan, the equity firms and Clear Channel complained.

The firms contend the banks are trying to kill the deal by putting unreasonable terms on the loan.

"The behavior of these banks is irresponsible, unprofessional and unjustified. The defendants have made clear that they are determined, by any means possible, to destroy the merger and thus avoid their obligation to fund, as they are required legally to do," said Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays in a statement.

The banks issued a statement denying they failed to make good on their earlier commitment.
"The bank group presented the sponsors with credit agreements fully consistent and compliant with the commitment letter," said the statement issued by Citigroup on behalf of the lending consortium. "We believe the suits are without merit and will contest them vigorously."
Clear Channel shares have been volatile for months. Shares fell $5.64, or more than 17 percent, to $26.92 Wednesday, the day after reports surfaced that the deal was on the brink of collapse. Following the lawsuits, the share price climbed $2.43, or 9 percent, to $29.35 in after-hours trading.

But the share price remains anemic compared with the $39.20 the equity firms agreed to pay for the company. The equity firms say they remain committed to closing the deal. If they don't, they face an estimated $500 million to $600 million in breakup fees.

The deal was scheduled to close by Monday. Failure to close on time opens the parties up to fees and other potential problems.

SMH Capital analyst David Miller said banks that were gladly loaning money for ever bigger leveraged buyouts just a year ago are now concerned about whether the company can generate enough free cash flow to cover the interest payments in a miserly credit market.

The banks are looking at a $3 billion to $4 billion write-down on the loan, so there's obvious incentive for lenders to seek a way to renegotiate or pull out.

Clear Channel has had success before in forcing a deal through legal action. The $1.1 billion sale of its television group closed after the company lowered the price by $100 million and sued Providence Equity Partners, which had been having difficulty getting Wachovia to make good on its earlier financing commitment.

Clear Channel is the nation's largest operator of radio stations, a business that has been stagnant for years as digital music players and satellite radio have siphoned off listeners and advertising dollars.

The company now generates more than half of its revenue from its billboard business, consisting of roughly 800,000 signs worldwide, and that business has been growing as advertisers have shifted spending away from other avenues to billboards, which are harder for consumers to bypass.

Clear Channel Communications Inc. and the private equity firms seeking to close a $19.5 billion buyout of the company have sued their lenders.

The radio and billboard giant filed suit Wednesday in Texas, claiming the five banks who promised to finance the deal are reneging. The private buyers, led by Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners, also sued.

The banks signed letters backing the deal, but in the 18 months since it was first made, the credit market has gotten much tighter and Clear Channel's stock is now trading well below the $39.20 that the buyers committed to pay.

The private equity firms face an estimated $500 million to $600 million in breakup fees if the deal does not go through.

Shares of Clear Channel closed down 17% to $26.92 on Wednesday as shareholders grew pessimistic about whether the deal would go through.

The buyout was supposed to be completed by Monday.

Monday, March 24, 2008


CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THESE MONOPOLIES: