Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Zuckerberg Selling $2.3 Billion of Facebook Stock - TIME

Zuckerberg Selling $2.3 Billion of Facebook Stock

http://business.time.com/2013/12/19/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-selling-stock/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

He's using most of the windfall to cover taxes.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will sell about $2.3 billion worth of shares in the company, slightly reducing his stake and voting power at the social network company, Facebook said Thursday.
Zuckerberg will sell 41.4 million shares as part of the firm’s stock offering of 70 million Class A common shares, reducing his voting power to 62.8 percent from 65.2 percent, according to a public filing by the company. The filing says Zuckerberg will use most of the windfall to pay taxes connected to his exercising an option to buy 60 million Class B common stock, the majority of which is being converted to Class A stock and sold in this offering, the filing said.
Venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen will also sell some 1.6 million shares worth about $89 million, and Facebook will sell another 27 million shares.
Facebook’s stock has doubled this year and closed Wednesday at $55.57.


Read more: Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Andreessen Selling Stock | TIME.com http://business.time.com/2013/12/19/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-selling-stock/#ixzz2oSqC2b00

The 'war on Christmas': Did Lincoln start it ? - CNN

The 'war on Christmas': Did Lincoln start it?


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/23/opinion/frum-war-on-christmas/index.html?sr=fb122413christmaswar10p

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • David Frum: Lincoln, like many in 1834, didn't observe Christmas as an official holiday
  • He says in late 19th century, Americans began to observe Christmas as a public holiday
  • Early Americans kept a sharp separation of church and state, Frum says
  • Frum: "War on Christmas" flap a reaction to a perceived threat to folkway, not religion
Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, is a contributing editor at The Daily Beast. He is the author of eight books, including a new novel, "Patriots," and a post-election e-book, "Why Romney Lost." Frum was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002.
(CNN) -- In 1834, Illinois voted whether to adopt Christmas as a legal holiday. Among those voting "nay" was the young Abraham Lincoln.
In 1834, Lincoln had not yet grown out of his atheist phase, but the young Lincoln's lack of faith in God -- and his lifelong disbelief in the divinity of Christ -- does not explain his vote. In 1834, a vote against Christmas was a safe, even a conventional vote.
Not a single state in the Union closed its offices for Christmas on December 25 in 1834. Lincoln marked his first Christmas as President, in December 1861, by holding a Cabinet meeting in the morning and a dinner party in the evening. The Lincoln family never had a White House tree and sent no Christmas cards.
Nobody was much shocked by these omissions.
The public Christmas as Americans know it today did not take form until late in the 19th century. George Washington issued a proclamation on Thanksgiving, but he never made any statement about Christmas (or Easter for that matter). The first state to recognize Christmas as a holiday was Alabama, in 1836, but the North and especially New England resisted. Not until 1856 did Massachusetts accept Christmas as a holiday. The federal government took until 1870 to follow.
David Frum
There's debate on the point, but it seems that Benjamin Harrison was the first president to allow a Christmas tree inside the White House in 1889.
The tradition of lighting a tree on the White House grounds commenced with Calvin Coolidge in 1923. Dwight Eisenhower sent the first White House Christmas cards. Eisenhower's cards, however, were always determinedly "seasonal." It waited until John F. Kennedy in 1963 to send a card that depicted a nativity scene.
This late flowering of Christmas observance reflects two facts about Christmas that seldom get much attention in our public debates about the "war on Christmas."
In its first century, the national government practiced a separation of church and state far sharper than anything Americans would accept today.
One example: From its founding in 1775, the federal post office delivered mail on Sundays. As evangelical forms of Christianity spread after 1800, the new denominations demanded an end to this desecration of the Sabbath. Some postmasters took it upon themselves to close operations. In response, Congress voted in 1810to require all postmasters to work at least one hour on Sunday, on pain of losing their positions.
See Christmas display with 350K lights
'Awkward' photos find new life online
10,000 carolers respond to girl's wish
The Americans of the founding generations insisted upon separation of church and state not because they were irreligious, but precisely because so many of them were so very intensely religious. Because religion mattered so much to early Americans, so did religious differences.
Calvinists and Baptists, Methodists and Catholics, the grandest Boston rector and the rawest frontier preacher disagreed, sometimes to the point of outright violence. Anti-Catholic riots ripped apart Boston, Philadelphia and Bath, Maine, between the 1830s and 1850s.
These contending denominations could, however, agree at least that they did not want a remote government in Washington favoring some religious practices over others. Better to deliver the mail on Sunday than debate who was right about the Sabbath. Better to issue no religious proclamations than let presidents pick and choose which holy days to mark and how to mark them.
A second fact also explains the coolness of the early national government to Christianity: the keen awareness of many 19th century Christians of the non-Christian origins of many Christmas traditions.
Christmas is celebrated near the date of the old Roman holiday of Saturnalia. Gift-giving on the day was also a Roman tradition. The Christmas tree, the hanging of wreaths and house-to-house caroling hark back to the pre-Christian German holiday of Yule.
Calvinists had abandoned their outright ban on Christmas observance on the late 17th century. But many Protestant denominations retained a lingering suspicion of the holiday until deep into the 19th century.
Two changes made possible the coalescing of an official Christmas holiday over the 40 years from Calvin Coolidge's outdoor Christmas tree to John F. Kennedy's sacral Christmas card: The fading of distinctions between Christians and the decline of theology within Christianity.
The once all-crucial distinctions between Calvinists and Arminians (whose beliefs came from Dutch reformist Jacobus Arminius) and between even Protestants and Catholics have blurred. The once-vivid mistrust of trees and tinsel and burning logs has vanished, as American Christianity evolved away from a creed in which people believed and into a set of practices that people did. If Christians decorate trees, then tree decorating must be Christian -- no matter how or why the custom started and what the custom meant to the people who started it.
Devout Christian believers can still be counted in the millions of course. Surrounding them, however, is a larger and more nebulous group for whom what was once a faith has become a folkway. For them, a Christmas tree or a nativity scene is less a declaration of individual belief than it is an expression of group identity.
Many Americans feel this group identity to be under threat by changes in recent years.
When they champion "Christmas as it was," they do not mean "Christmas as it was for George Washington or Abraham Lincoln" and much less "Christmas as it was for Martin Luther or Jonathan Edwards." They mean, "Christmas as it was when I was young."
That is why we have eruptions such as last week's flap over the whiteness of Santa Claus. If your Christmas celebrates the appearance of God Himself in the form of a human baby, it won't have a lot of room for a gift-giving elf and flying reindeer. But if Santa is at most tangential to the Christmas of faith, he is utterly central to the Christmas of folkway.
It is the Christmas of folkway that is the Christmas so passionately defended by those who talk about "the war on Christmas."

The Christmas of Santa and Rudolph, and trees and stockings, and candy canes and "Merry Christmas" greetings began to be most publicly celebrated in the United States only after -- and only because -- the religious impetus for the holiday had already dwindled away.

Oil supply: The cartel’s challenge - Financial Times

Oil supply: The cartel’s challenge

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/bc23bc7a-581a-11e3-82fc-00144feabdc0.html?segid=0100320#axzz2mKCkfhCF
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bc23bc7a-581a-11e3-82fc-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2mKDOv0j
By Ajay Makan and Neil Hume
At a private dinner early in November a group of executives from one of the world’s largest commodity traders was asked to predict the price of oil in a year’s time. Without exception the forecasts, scribbled on place cards without consultation, were for Brent crude to fall well below the $100 a barrel level it has traded above for most of the past three years.
Those predictions reflect a growing consensus in the oil market. From US shale to aneasing of sanctions on Iran, the coming years are expected to provide a huge boost to global output, inverting the structure of the oil market in which supplies have long  been rationed by a handful of producers.

Oil prices

That is a concern for the Opec group of oil producers as its ministers prepare to meet in Vienna this week. The cartel of Middle Eastern, Latin American and African producers has had a strong run as prices have stayed high, allowing some members to pump as much oil as they can.
But many forecasters expect Opec to cut its production next year as supply rises from the US, Canada, Kazakhstan and other countries outside the cartel.
“Opec is still crucial to the market because of its ability to curtail production. The question is whether any member apart from Saudi Arabia is prepared to do that in the future in response to changing market conditions,” says Jason Bordoff, director of the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, until recently an Obama administration official.
Talk of an oil supply revolution begins in the US.America is producing more crude than it is importingfor the first time since the 1990s. Within a few years it is expected to be the world’s largest oil producer.
The country may also be weaning itself off its addiction to oil. This year consumption of petroleum products is running 10 per cent below its 2005 peak, while cheap and abundant shale gas is finding its way into train and truck engines, making inroads into oil’s monopoly as a transport fuel.
So far this has had little impact on oil prices, as civil war in Libya and sanctions against Iran have offset US production growth. Brent has averaged around $108.50 a barrel this year and Saudi Arabia has had to produce at record levels of more than 10m barrels per day. Output from other Gulf states, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, is also close to, or at, record levels.
US imports from the Middle East have held up remarkably well, too, as sophisticated Texan refineries continue to rely on the region’s heavier crudes. But the US transformation has not gone unnoticed in the Gulf, particularly in Riyadh.
“The US is saying it will be the largest producer in the world, that it will become energy independent and that the world will depend less on imported oil. All of these messages are disturbing,” says Mohammad Al Sabban, a senior adviser to the Saudi oil minister from 1986 until last year.
Saudi observers are not worried so much by growing US production as by what they perceive to be a change in strategy by their oldest ally.
The deal with Iran on its nuclear programme last week and the US retreat from air strikes against Syria make Sunni Gulf monarchies nervous that the US is cosying up to their Shia rivals in the region. Industry officials past and present in the country are drawing a direct link between American foreign policy and the oil market.
“There is a clear perception that there is a lack of strategy and lack of thinking in major countries in the west, in particular the US,” says Sadad Al-Husseini, the former head of exploration at Aramco, the Saudi state oil company, who now runs a consultancy.
“They don’t appear to know what they want to do in foreign policy, or in economic policy, and that creates uncertainty for oil producers.”
Uncertainty about demand is reflected in investment decisions. Earlier this year Saudi Arabia said it no longer planned to increase oil capacity beyond its current level of around 12.5m b/d before 2040 because of the growth in supplies elsewhere.
The UAE has reportedly pushed back its target for increasing production capacity to 3.5m b/d from 2017 to 2020. In Kuwait the government is struggling against parliament to justify further investment in spare capacity.
Gulf states are certainly still spending – Saudi Arabia ploughed $17bn into developing the Manifa field, which started production this year. Output there is expected to reach 900,000 b/d, equal to current production in the Bakken or Eagle Ford shale formations, the leaders of the US shale revolution.
But investment is increasingly aimed at replacing declining production from mature fields, rather than increasing capacity.
“The cost of investing in spare capacity is very high, and I tell you there is huge pressure from the populations of the Gulf to allocate investment to something else,” says Mr Al Sabban.
But Gulf officials scoff at the idea that a growing diversity of supply poses a wider threat to demand for their crude.
Surging US oil production has obscured disappointing output in a number of other countries outside Opec, which were expected to emerge as counterweights to the cartel.
In Brazil, ultra-deepwater discoveries in 2007 and 2008 were meant to propel the country into the top ranks of oil producers. Instead output declined in 2012 and the International Energy Agency expects it to fall again this year as Petrobras, the state oil company, struggles to extract oil from beneath 4km of water, rock and salt.
In Kazakhstan the enormous Kashagan oilfield continues to bamboozle the combined talents of ExxonMobil, ENI, Royal Dutch Shell and Total with its leaks of deadly hydrogen sulphide gas and ice packs. After a decade of delays and $50bn of investment, production finally began in September only to be halted within weeks by another technical fault.
. . .
In each of the past three years the IEA, which formulates energy policy for industrialised countries, has underestimated demand for Opec crude at the start of the year. Now it is tempering its optimism on non-Opec supply growth.
At the release of its annual report on global energy markets last month, the Paris-based organisation characterised shale as merely a brief interregnum within the otherwise steady control of Opec over the oil market.
“I am really worried that we are giving the wrong signals to the Middle East, which may end up with us not having investment in a timely manner,” said Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist. “The wait and see behaviour is definitely not in the interest of consumers or global oil markets because it may mean significantly higher prices in the future.”
The IEA expects US production of light, tight oil – the IEA’s term for shale oil – to peak in 2020 and decline thereafter. Outside the US, the IEA expects light tight oil production to contribute only 1.5m b/d of supplies by 2035 as countries such as Russia and China make limited progress toward unlocking their shale reserves.
Then there is cost of production. Even when it is produced on time and on budget, unconventional oil is expensive. The IEA estimates the cost of ultra-deepwater production at up to $100 a barrel compared with a maximum of just over $20 a barrel for conventional output in the Middle East. That means if oil does fall below $100 for a prolonged period, high-cost production from Canada’s oil sands to US shale fields might have to be halted, allowing prices to recover.
Perhaps the greatest threat to Opec – apart from an emerging markets crisis or a sharp slowdown in Chinese economic growth – comes from with­in: the potential for much cheaper oil to be produced by its own members.
A comprehensive deal on the Iranian nuclear programme could see Tehran increase production by 1m b/d within months. Iraq aims to increase production by about 500,000 b/d next year to 3.5m b/d as it continues to rebuild its oil industry following the US-led invasion.
Long shut out of the market by sanctions and war, Iran and Iraq are unlikely to heed the cartel’s production target of 30m b/d as they seek to regain market share.
Ed Morse, a veteran analyst at Citi, argues Opec will be forced to confront increasing production from within its ranks next year as growing US output erodes demand for Opec crude. He also thinks most forecasters are underestimating the potential for the US shale boom to be replicated in other countries, posing further long-term challenges to the cartel.
Others go further. “The time for Opec has passed,” says Fereidun Fesharaki, chairman of Facts Global Energy, a consultancy. “We are entering a new world with plenty of hydrocarbons and a diversity of supply. The direction is clear, it is just a matter of time.”
. . .
As prices have held steady above $100 a barrel, Opec has allowed its organisational structure to atrophy, raising questions over whether it can now impose discipline if required.
Opec stopped publishing individual country quotas five years ago. Since 2011 Saudi Arabia has largely ignored the group production target, instead tailoring output to customer demand. Every other member pumps as much oil as it can to take advantage of high prices.
“If Opec falls apart, it will be because the organisation lacks the ability to resist internal production growth, rather than US shale,” says Amrita Sen, head of the Energy Aspects consultancy.
As a rule Opec prefers to wait for shifts in supply or demand to filter through to oil prices before acting to raise or curb output.
The organisation is highly unlikely to confront production growth head on at this week’s meeting either. Iran and Iraq may create headlines with promises to step up production and insinuations of a price war with Saudi Arabia for market share.
But Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, and Abdalla El-Badri, the Opec secretary-general, are likely to shrug their shoulders and counsel patience.
Should the anticipated supply surge materialise, the resulting fall in price would also increase the incentive for members to agree on production cuts.
During the financial crisis in 2008 Opec agreed to across-the-board cuts as Brent prices dropped by 75 per cent. The Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s provides a less promising precedent. Opec did eventually cut production but only after Brent fell to $9 a barrel, a fate today’s members would not want to repeat.
“Opec has historically always been more effective when prices are heading down than when they’re heading up,” says Bill Farren-Price, a long-time observer of the organisation at Petroleum Policy Intelligence. “I have no reason to believe that they would not be able to cut a deal this time.”
If the traders’ dinner predictions turn out to be correct, we will soon find out.
-------------------------------------------
Iraq: Conflict clouds the next decade of production
For the next decade in oil markets, much will depend on Iraqwrites Ajay Makan.
War and sanctions limited production from 1990 to 2008, leaving Iraq with plentiful reserves that are relatively cheap to exploit. Iraq has overtaken Iran as the second-largest Opec producer. The IEA expects output to double to 6m barrels a day by 2020.
But this year has been the bloodiest since 2008. Violence is spreading to the Shia-dominated south, Iraq’s main oil-producing region. Jitters swept the industry last month when Baker Hughes, a US oilfield services group, suspended operations and Shia protesters, angered by a religious slight, attacked a staff camp at Schlumberger,also a services provider.
Traders are beginning to scale back expectations for the country. “The industry almost accepts as a given that there will be security problems on an ongoing basis and that is a concern,” says David Fyfe, head of analysis at Gunvor, a commodity trader. “Instead of half a million barrels a day of extra exports, we might see only a fraction of that.”
A senior trader at a large energy company is even more downbeat: “It will be a challenge to avoid a major disruption to the industry. Export growth is not guaranteed.”
Apart from security problems, international oil companies say crumbling infrastructure is making it impossible for them to raise production to levels agreed with the government.

Iraq’s principal export terminal near Basra is vulnerable to disruption. In November exports were halted when bad weather prevented ships loading. That meant the Rumaila oilfield, Iraq’s largest with more than 1.3m b/d of production, had to be shut down for a few days, according to industry sources. “As soon as there is any problem further down the chain, you have to shut in production at a field and it takes weeks to restart because the equipment is old and rickety,” complains one oil company.