Monday, July 7, 2014
Saturday, July 5, 2014
How to Hunt a Chinese Hacker - TIME
http://time.com/2918689/how-to-hunt-a-chinese-hacker/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
July 3, 2014
The private firm CrowdStrike followed an alleged Chinese hacker's footprints and uncovered a detailed picture of a menace to U.S. businesses
There are many photographs of Chen Ping. In one, he’s scarfing down pastries at a birthday party. In another, the camera catches him mid-laugh, standing in front of an ivy-covered wall. Chen photographed his dorm room, too, with bottles of rice liquor splayed across a desk next to a potted plant, clothes hanging in the corner. In a garden, he took photos of his girlfriend, catching a pleasant smile.
The photos are curious because Chen was supposed to be one of the faceless warriors in an emerging global cyber-war, according to researchers at the Internet security firm CrowdStrike. But the 35-year-old former resident of Shanghai left a trail of clues and photographs that researchers say led back to a People’s Liberation Army headquarters, where a covert team of Chinese hackers has been attacking telecommunications and satellite companies in the U.S. for at least seven years. The CrowdStrike researchers nicknamed Chen’s hacking ring “Putter Panda.”
To the Chinese army, the hackers are known only as People’s Liberation Army Unit 61486 — a group that a U.S. government official confirmed in an interview with TIME was responsible for cyber-attacks on American companies. The group came to light in a recent New York Times story. And Project 2049, a nongovernmental think tank based in Arlington, Va., claimed in a 2011 report that Unit 61486 was involved in the interception of satellite communications, as well as the acquisition of research in satellite imagery. But it wasn’t until researchers at CrowdStrike tracked down the hacker called Chen that the world got an unprecedented inside look at one of China’s notorious cyber-attack units.
CrowdStrike is part of a fast-growing group of young companies including FireEye, Sourcefire, OpenDNS and others that are challenging more established players for a bigger claim to the $67 billion cyber-security industry. They’re doing that by tracking state-sponsored hackers like Unit 61486 and independent cyber-criminals alike, anticipating their attacks before they happen. According to research firm Gartner, the security-technology industry is expected to grow to $86 billion by 2016. As cyber-attacks from state-sponsored hackers simply become a cost of doing business for many American companies, security researchers are making money by stalking hackers through fiber-optic cables and web domains to their computers back home.
At CrowdStrike, a 20-person team of researchers used technology ranging from the cutting-edge to the prosaic to find Chen’s Shanghai office address, and then monitored him and his colleagues. Companies like CrowdStrike say they are the first line of defense for U.S. companies’ intellectual property. “This is like real-time warfare,” says George Kurtz, co-founder of CrowdStrike. “We’re able to see exactly what they’re trying to do, where they’re trying to go and able to stop them in their tracks.”
Digital Warfare
It’s become increasingly clear that the future of espionage will be played out through fiber-optic cables, web servers and other computer systems. Cyber-espionage costs U.S. companies $30 billion each year in lost intellectual property alone, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and that doesn’t include the cost of cleaning up and recovering information. The FBI notified 3,000 U.S. companies that they had been hacked in 2013 by cyber-criminals or Chinese state actors. “We remain concerned that Chinese authorities continue to use cyber-operations to steal information and intellectual property from U.S. entities for the purpose of giving Chinese companies a competitive advantage,” a senior administration official told TIME.
Cyber-attacks are not a one-way street, of course. The National Security Agency is believed to have developed powerful capabilities to strike foreign entities. The U.S. badly disrupted Iran’s nuclear program through targeted network attacks in 2009 and 2010, according to multiple reports at the time. And the Edward Snowden leaks revealed that the NSA is engaged in the surveillance of email and telecommunications around the world, with the primary aim of bolstering U.S. national security — rather than the bottom lines of U.S. companies.
But security experts say Chinese cyber-programs are broadly focused on disrupting foreign businesses, taking valuable intellectual property and sensitive bidding information that Chinese corporations can use to their advantage. After hacking American manufacturers and corporations, the PLA passes on information to Chinese state-owned enterprises, often for a fee, says Jim Lewis, the director of strategic technologies at CSIS and a former foreign-service officer with the Departments of State and Commerce. Chinese corporate hacking is a robust industry, not limited to stealing foreign commercial secrets but also involves Chinese companies trying to best each other. “The Chinese are far and away the global leaders in terms of commercial espionage,” says Lewis. “The PLA will steal the F-35 plans, but they’ll also steal paint formulas or soap formulas.”
By keeping tabs on hackers and publishing open reports, private security companies like CrowdStrike may also be playing a role in pushing the U.S. to prosecute hackers. Last year, security firm Mandiant identified a different Chinese army group, Unit 61398, that allegedly hacked a broad swath of U.S. companies. Then in May, the Justice Department made history by charging five individuals from Unit 61398 for hacking U.S. businesses. The Chinese government denied the Justice Department’s claims, calling the accusations of hacking “made up” in official statements. “China is a staunch defender of network security, and the Chinese government, military and associated personnel have never engaged in online theft of trade secrets,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said last month.
CrowdStrike had long been keeping tabs on Chen’s Unit 61486 for its customers, but it wasn’t until the Chinese government’s denials that the firm decided to publicize its findings. “We put out the report specifically based on the denials of the Chinese government after the Department of Justice indictment,” says Kurtz. “We kind of got fed up and said, O.K., here’s a totally separate group than the one that was focused on by the DOJ and here’s all the proof.” CrowdStrike says it alerted the U.S. government before it released its report.
Unit 61486 began exploiting vulnerabilities in Microsoft and Adobe coding as early as 2007, hacking satellite and telecommunications companies, says Adam Meyers, head of intelligence at CrowdStrike. “There was a massive number of targets and data that were hit,” Meyers says.
Following Chen’s Tracks
Meyers’ team at CrowdStrike compiled a startling amount of information about Chen Ping (who happens to have a very common name), the alleged member of Unit 61486. CrowdStrike first looked at remote web domains being used to direct and control malware on infected computers. The web domains had to be registered, and the team found that many of the domains were registered under the same email addresses. One registered at least a half-dozen of the website domain names; someone with another email address registered several as well.
The big find, however, was a certain “cpyy” — operating with two major email providers — who had registered a large number of the remote malware-control domains. The CrowdStrike team cast a wide net to find cpyy, trailing the nom de guerre to a personal blog by a registrant named Chen. Chen’s blog profile, all in Chinese, stated he was born on May 25, 1979, and that he worked for the “military/police.” Another cpyy blog listed the identical birthdate and noted that the user lived in Shanghai. The blog said, “Soldier’s duty is to defend the country, as long as our country is safe, our military is excellent.” Meyers’ team was fairly certain it was the same Chen, given that same handle appeared repeatedly, but they needed more evidence to connect him to the PLA.
Sifting through the public records that connected Chen’s online profiles, the team found photos he posted. He shot with a Nikon, CrowdStrike said. He had a Google Picasa album with some of the same pictures in his blog post. Photos captioned “me” showed a young man with a bemused smile, laughing in a tent with a friend, doing pull-ups in front of a group of soldiers and playing guitar in a field. He took artistic photographs of objects in what he called “office.” According to Meyers, the photos revealed Chen was not just one hacker acting alone: in one, PLA hats were stacked in the background, and another photo of satellite dishes in his album “office” indicated ties to army signals intelligence.
Chen was sloppy. When he registered one of the malware-control web domains, he input a physical address that tied him to a Shanghai building near the massive satellite dishes from his photos, Meyers says. Close analysis of overhead satellite imagery linked all the buildings in Ping’s photos to the very same address. And the CrowdStrike team found a Chinese website that listed the same address as a PLA building for Ping’s unit, 61486.
That implicated Chen, the unit and by extension, the Chinese government, according to CrowdStrike. “These guys are human,” says Meyers. “Sometimes when you’re behind the keyboard and you walk away from it, you forget there are other people out there who are going to be looking for you.” (Chen did not respond to request for comment to his listed email addresses. China’s Foreign Ministry did not return requests for comment.)
Covering Up the Trail
When the Justice Department charged the five alleged Chinese hackers in May with stealing trade secrets from U.S. companies, it named the hackers in the indictment and published photos of them. To some observers it was not so much an attempt to prosecute the accused hackers, who would have to be extradited from China, but more of a clear message to the Chinese army: We know how to find you.
“Cyber-theft is real theft and we will hold state sponsored cyber-thieves accountable as we would any other transnational criminal organization that steals our goods and breaks our laws,” John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, said in a statement in May.
Experts say that going forward, the Chinese are likely to be more careful about leaving fingerprints behind in cyber-attacks.
Chen had been moved out of Shanghai to Kunming, Yunnan province, as early as 2011, CrowdStrike said, where according to Project 2049, the nongovernmental think tank, his army bureau (the 12th) has a facility. After Meyers’ team released its report, all the data that had been used to find Unit 61486 was scrubbed from the Internet, and Ping seemed to disappear. “They cleaned up all of his online presence real quick after that report came out,” Meyers says. “The next day, all of his sites were gone.”
Friday, July 4, 2014
Google’s Blocking an Email Because Goldman Sachs Asked It To - TIME
- http://time.com/2953880/goldman-sachs-google-block-email/
- Jack Linshi @jacklinshi
Google is blocking a user's access after Goldman accidentally sent a confidential message to the wrong person
Google is blocking a Gmail user from accessing a confidential message that was accidentally sent by a Goldman Sachs contractor, a Goldman spokesperson told Reuters Wednesday. The email, which contained privileged client information, was sent to a “@gmail.com” address instead of “@gs.com.”
The email snafu, which occurred on June 23, may have resulted in a “needless and massive” breach of privacy, Goldman told Reuters, leading the company to ask Google to block the message. A Goldman spokeswoman said Google complied with the investment bank’s request.
The e-mail, however, has not been deleted, an act which would require a court order, according to Google’s “incident response team.” Goldman accordingly filed a complaint on Friday in a New York state court in Manhattan.
“Emergency relief is necessary to avoid the risk of inflicting a needless and massive privacy violation upon Goldman Sachs’ clients, and to avoid the risk of unnecessary reputational damage to Goldman Sachs,” the financial firm stated in the court documents.
The contractor had been testing changes to the bank’s internal processes, Goldman said. The bank did not confirm how many clients were affected.
[Reuters]
Thursday, July 3, 2014
3 Ways to Deal With Someone You Really Dislike at Work - TIME
http://time.com/2945147/tips-employee-management/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
July 1, 2014
Most of the time, managing a team—or even just one person—can be super rewarding. As a manager, you have the opportunity to be a mentor to someone who’s eager to learn, and you’ll probably learn a few things yourself. But, what happens when you’re managing someone who isn’t quite your favorite?
You have a responsibility to mentor and manage every person on your team, whether you like them personally or not. But that doesn’t make the task any easier. I’ve had to manage several employees over the years that I most definitely would be happy to never see again. Here’s how I did it, without shirking my duties as a manager—or driving myself crazy.
Find Out Why
Sometimes, our least favorite employees are in that position at no fault of their own. I figured this out when starting a new job as a manager. I had one employee who was outgoing, ambitious, and hard working—and yet, I couldn’t stand her. For the longest time, I had no idea why.
So, I started making a mental note every time she did something that made me cringe and looked for patterns. It turned out, I found her most annoying every time she asked me a question—specifically one I couldn’t readily answer. I realized that, while her constant questions were definitely not on my favorite to-do list, the real issue wasn’t really with her, it was with me—I didn’t like feeling unprepared and put on the spot.
After that, I made a point to bone up on the issues she typically raised and enlisted her help in figuring out solutions to common snags the entire group faced. Not only did I improve my skills and knowledge as a manager, but I empowered her to take on more responsibility—and kept her busy in the process.
If you’ve got an employee you avoid like the plague, try to figure out what exactly it is about that person that’s driving you batty. The answer might surprise you, and trust me, once you realize what’s irking you, it’ll be much easier to address.
Grab a Pen
I’m a big fan of taking notes, and will rarely go anywhere around the office without my trusty notebook and pen in hand. While it’s obvious why this is beneficial in a meeting, I was surprised to realize my notebook had handy meditative powers, too.
A few years back, I was relatively new as a manager, so I hadn’t come across too many employees I didn’t really like, but one guy was a definite non-favorite. Among many other things, he was a talker. Every time he came by my desk to ask me “a question,” I’d find myself nodding off 20 minutes later, without a clue what he really needed. Not good.
So, I started keeping my notebook handy on my desk. Whenever he came by, I’d politely stop him, grab my pen, and start taking notes of our conversation.
My goal was twofold; first, I wanted to keep myself on track and force myself to pay attention to what he was saying—after all, I was still his manager, and I was there to help him—and secondly, I hoped that my furious note taking would help keep him on track, too. After all, it’s hard to ramble on and on when you know someone’s transcribing your every word.
One of the hardest tasks when dealing with your least favorite employees is making sure you give them the attention they deserve. Keep a pen and notebook handy, and you’ll not only make sure you’re paying attention, but you’ll have a sly diversionary tactic to keep your mind off how annoyed you are at the conversation.
Call For Backup
I know, this probably sounds strange, but if done correctly, it can be an elegant solution to dealing with your least favorite employee.
I stumbled across this tactic after I’d been a manager for a while and was lucky enough to have some great people working with me, including my second in command. She was always eager to learn and jumped at any opportunity to take on additional responsibilities. So, when I was getting frustrated with a particularly irksome employee, she asked if she could take a stab at coaching. The issue we were dealing with at the time was minor and, she suggested, a perfect opportunity for her to try her hand at managing.
This, it turned out, was a great approach. Not only did she get the chance to gradually test the management waters, I was able to observe and guide her throughout the process. And an unexpected benefit? I learned a ton watching her deal with this employee. She approached him in a completely different way, which he responded to quite well. I ended up adopting some of her techniques, and he and I eventually ended up getting along pretty well.
The lesson here is, when all else fails, don’t be afraid to call on someone else to pinch hit. Just remember, this should be used as a learning opportunity for both you and your (temporary) substitute, so don’t fall into the trap of just passing off all your difficult employees to other people.
When you manage, all your employees probably won’t be stars, and some of them will likely drive you crazy from time to time. Keep these tips in mind when you’re getting frustrated with one (or, um, all) of your employees, and they’ll never have a clue they aren’t your favorite.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Could inflation be the new subprime? - CNBC
When Fed Chair Janet Yellen essentially dismissed inflation as a threat last week, she sought to calm investors' fears but in doing so also raised an unpleasant specter of the not-too-distant past.
To some, the central bank chief's assertion that inflation threats were coming from "noisy" data—economist talk for volatile, one-off conditions not likely to persist—sounded at least a little like her predecessor, Ben Bernanke, who in March 2007 said problems in the subprime mortgage market were "contained" and unlikely to pose a larger, more systemic threat. The subprime market, of course, was in the early stages of a meltdown that spread across the financial system and triggered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
"Do not be surprised if 'noisy' is now the new 'transitory,'" Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets, said in a note to clients.
"This is part of a larger message that came through in Yellen's press conference. That is that the Fed is not setting policy based on their best guess of where they believe the economy will be, but rather where the economy has been," he added. "In other words, instead of trying to shape the economy on a forward-looking basis through monetary policy, they are instead more likely to react to largely coincident-to-lagging developments. The potential for a policy mistake and a Fed that falls well behind the curve seems obvious."
For Porcelli and other Wall Street pros who issued warnings on Yellen's blithe inflation comments, the worry is that the Fed waits too long to give at least lip service to an inflation threat and ends up having its hand forced in tightening monetary policy and raising interest rates.
To some, the central bank chief's assertion that inflation threats were coming from "noisy" data—economist talk for volatile, one-off conditions not likely to persist—sounded at least a little like her predecessor, Ben Bernanke, who in March 2007 said problems in the subprime mortgage market were "contained" and unlikely to pose a larger, more systemic threat. The subprime market, of course, was in the early stages of a meltdown that spread across the financial system and triggered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
"Do not be surprised if 'noisy' is now the new 'transitory,'" Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets, said in a note to clients.
"This is part of a larger message that came through in Yellen's press conference. That is that the Fed is not setting policy based on their best guess of where they believe the economy will be, but rather where the economy has been," he added. "In other words, instead of trying to shape the economy on a forward-looking basis through monetary policy, they are instead more likely to react to largely coincident-to-lagging developments. The potential for a policy mistake and a Fed that falls well behind the curve seems obvious."
For Porcelli and other Wall Street pros who issued warnings on Yellen's blithe inflation comments, the worry is that the Fed waits too long to give at least lip service to an inflation threat and ends up having its hand forced in tightening monetary policy and raising interest rates.
Here's the next big thing the Fed will talk about
Bob Doll, the reliably bullish chief equity strategist at Nuveen Asset Management, included in his weekly analysis a header that sounded a lot like what Porcelli said: "The Fed May be Falling Behind the Curve."
The Consumer Price Index, the market's most widely followed inflation measure, is trending at a 2.1 percent annualized rate. But the Personal Consumption Expenditures gauge, which the Fed uses, is more subdued and expected to measure about 1.6 percent in May when the latest numbers are released Thursday, a number that would be well above the 0.9 percent at the previous Fed meeting in April.
The reason for the disparity is the two measures allot greater weightings to different factors, with the CPI most dependent on housing costs while health care is the main driver of the PCE measure.
Read MoreBacon Cheeseburger Index, and other cool measures
Deutsche Bank economists warned Monday that health-care costs are likely to begin to accelerate. At the same time, consumers are feeling the pinch of higher energy costs and soaring grocery prices, in particular for chicken, beef and fish. Shelter, medical and transportation services also have posted increases well above the Fed's 2 percent target inflation rate.
You wouldn't have known it by Yellen's comments, though, and that's what has economists worried.
Believing that a Fed rate hike could come well ahead of market expectations, Capital Economics summed up the fears in a report of its own:
Gold prices, for one, have jumped about 9.5 percent this year, outpacing the 6.1 percent gain in the S&P 500 stock market index.
Bonds that protect against inflation also have performed well. The Barclays U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Index has risen 5.5 percent so far—not as much as some other government bonds but well ahead of its three-year gains and about on par with five-year returns.
Read MoreThis could end bull run in stocks: Paulsen
Economist and persistent Fed critical Michael Pento believes, however, that too many investors remain sanguine about the long-term effects of policies that have sent the central bank's balance sheet past the $4.4 trillion mark.
Philadelphia Fed Chairman Charles Plosser, among the Open Market Committee's most hawkish members, told a gathering Tuesday at the Economic Club in New York that the economy is growing faster than the FOMC consensus believes, meaning that policy may tighten ahead of schedule.
At least some in the market are preparing for that outcome, as highlighted in a report Tuesday from David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff:
Bob Doll, the reliably bullish chief equity strategist at Nuveen Asset Management, included in his weekly analysis a header that sounded a lot like what Porcelli said: "The Fed May be Falling Behind the Curve."
"From our vantage point, economic growth is improving, the labor market is getting healthier and inflation is showing a modest uptick. Yet the Fed does not appear to acknowledge the changing landscape. The statement from the Fed's policy meeting last week about inflation contained the same language as its April statement. We certainly don't expect the Fed to change its stance toward monetary policy any time soon, but the Fed may be underestimating the strength of the economy, the pace of jobs growth and, most critically, the possibility of higher inflation."To be sure, none of those who commented believe inflation at present is out of the ordinary.
The Consumer Price Index, the market's most widely followed inflation measure, is trending at a 2.1 percent annualized rate. But the Personal Consumption Expenditures gauge, which the Fed uses, is more subdued and expected to measure about 1.6 percent in May when the latest numbers are released Thursday, a number that would be well above the 0.9 percent at the previous Fed meeting in April.
The reason for the disparity is the two measures allot greater weightings to different factors, with the CPI most dependent on housing costs while health care is the main driver of the PCE measure.
Read MoreBacon Cheeseburger Index, and other cool measures
Deutsche Bank economists warned Monday that health-care costs are likely to begin to accelerate. At the same time, consumers are feeling the pinch of higher energy costs and soaring grocery prices, in particular for chicken, beef and fish. Shelter, medical and transportation services also have posted increases well above the Fed's 2 percent target inflation rate.
You wouldn't have known it by Yellen's comments, though, and that's what has economists worried.
Believing that a Fed rate hike could come well ahead of market expectations, Capital Economics summed up the fears in a report of its own:
"We don't agree with Janet Yellen's view that the recent rise in inflation is just noise. Instead, it is clear to us that a widespread strengthening in price pressures in areas as diverse as rents, medical care, clothing and new vehicles is underway. The big risk is that a larger rise in inflation than the Fed expects prompts it to raise interest rates earlier and further."While government bond yields have been loathe to reflect inflation threats, investors have reacted elsewhere.
Gold prices, for one, have jumped about 9.5 percent this year, outpacing the 6.1 percent gain in the S&P 500 stock market index.
Bonds that protect against inflation also have performed well. The Barclays U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Index has risen 5.5 percent so far—not as much as some other government bonds but well ahead of its three-year gains and about on par with five-year returns.
Read MoreThis could end bull run in stocks: Paulsen
Economist and persistent Fed critical Michael Pento believes, however, that too many investors remain sanguine about the long-term effects of policies that have sent the central bank's balance sheet past the $4.4 trillion mark.
"The bottom line here is that central banks around the world have fallen into a passionate love affair with inflation and asset bubbles. ... But the joke will be on these market manipulators and legalized counterfeiters in just a very short amount of time. Doubling down on the failed strategies of debt, inflation, currency destruction, regulations, taxes and artificially-low interest rates will soon explode in their faces once again—but only to a much great extent this time around."Not everyone on the central bank believes the broader narrative that inflation is not a worry.
Philadelphia Fed Chairman Charles Plosser, among the Open Market Committee's most hawkish members, told a gathering Tuesday at the Economic Club in New York that the economy is growing faster than the FOMC consensus believes, meaning that policy may tighten ahead of schedule.
At least some in the market are preparing for that outcome, as highlighted in a report Tuesday from David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff:
"We are a tipping point, methinks, on housing jobs and inflation. And if that is the case, the Fed is so far behind the curve it isn't even funny—maybe this is the message from the U.S. dollar and gold."—By CNBC's Jeff Cox
Monday, June 30, 2014
Google Has a Plan to Bring Smartphones to a Billion More Users - TIME
http://time.com/2923365/smartphone-users/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
June 25, 2014
Google now has more than a billion people using its Android mobile operating system on a monthly basis, and it has a new plan to lure the next billion users. At its annual I/O developers conference, the company announced Android One, a new set of basic hardware standards that phone manufacturers will be able to use to develop smartphones on the cheap.
The new initiative is aimed at developing markets and will initially roll out with three manufacturers in India. The company demonstrated one phone with a 4.5-inch screen and SD card reader, FM radio slot and dual-SIM support that would retail for less than $100. Though India is the initial target, Google has plans to expand the program globally.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
YouTube Is About to Change Drastically -TIME
http://time.com/2934093/youtube-crowdfunding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
June 27, 2014
YouTube is introducing a new way for its legion of video creators to make money on the site. The Google division announced Thursday at Vidcon that it is launching a crowdfunding system called Fan Funding that will allow viewers to donate as much as $500 to video creators. The feature, which will function more like a tip jar than the highly coordinated campaigns on sites like Kickstarter, is being tested among a select number of channels in the United States, Mexico, Japan and Australia. Creators can apply to have their channels added to the trial.
Internet users have shown a huge appetite for funding video projects in recent years. On Kickstarter, Film and Video is the second most-funded category on the site, with people pledging $224 million to such projects over the years. Patreon, a newer startup that was launched by a YouTube creator seeking more revenue, has generated $2 million for creators since it launched early in 2013. By adding a donation model of its own, YouTube may be able to keep its stars more tightly bound to its own ecosystem, rather than seeing them venture off to other sites. But YouTube says its own donation system is meant to be additive, not a direct competitor to these other sites. “Fan funding is an addition to goal-based fundraising like Kickstarter, as well as subscription-based fundraising like Patreon, and we hope creators continue to use all these tools to reach their greatest levels of success,” YouTube spokesman Matt McLernon said in an email.
YouTube will take a 5% commission on all donations, plus a flat fee of $0.21 to cover costs, McLernon said. Kickstarter and Patreon also charge a 5% commission, while crowdfunding site Indiegogo’s fees range from 4% to 9%. In addition to the donation system, YouTube announced several other new features, such as support of video shot at 60 frames per second and a new weekly radio show on Sirius XM starring YouTube star Jenna Marbles.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Why World Cup Bettors Are Smarter Than Bond Buyers - TIME
http://time.com/money/2911894/why-world-cup-bettors-are-smarter-than-bond-buyers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
June 26, 2014
In soccer, Argentina is a global power. Ranked 5th in the world and featuring among its host of stars the world’s best player, Lionel Messi, it is one of the teams that can threaten Brazil’s march to the World Cup title.
In financial circles, on the other hand, Argentina is to a functioning economy what the Faroe Islands are to football. A bit of a joke. A doormat. Indeed, last week the U.S. Supreme Court slide tackled Argentina as it tried to dribble past some American investors who are demanding to be paid, in full, the interest due on their Argentine bonds. Having convinced other creditors to go along with a deal—part of a broader effort to right the economy after years of mismanagement–the Argentinians wanted to force the American investors to eat some losses as well. The Supremes blew the whistle on that.
This raises a question, albeit one more likely to be debated in bars off Wall Street than on the beaches of Rio: Are you better off betting on a country’s bonds, or on its soccer team? With Argentina, the answer seems clear: The country’s chances of paying off its sovereign debt in full appear to be inversely proportional to the odds of its football team winning the World Cup, where it was a 4-to-1 pre-tournament favorite in Las Vegas. Argentinian debt, meanwhile, has a yield of about 13%, reflecting a risk premium that only Nigeria approaches among World Cup finalists. In short, betting on Messi may be the saner play.
With global interest rates so low in a world awash in liquidity, you’d think more global investors would reach a similar conclusion — but in many cases you’d be wrong. Investors ought to be yellow-carded: Their quest for yield is leading to crazier behavior in the market than on the pitch. Italy is a prime example. Punters pegged Italy, one of footballing’s great nations, as a 20-to-1 long-shot to win the World Cup. They got it right, too, considering Italy’s early exit after a controversial loss to Uruguay. But the Italian economy is a lot worse than the Azzurri. It’s still mired in its economic past, and where young people are stifled in finding work. Still, Italy’s bonds offer a measly 2.92%, only about 30 basis points higher than the 2.61% for U.S. Treasuries.
The U.S. team, on the other hand, went off as a 100-to-1 shot; ironically, we’re still considered a third-world nation on the soccer field, despite advancing to the knockout round of the World Cup again. With its strong (if heartbreakingly inconsistent) play so far, the U.S. team’s odds are now down to 40-to-1 to win the Cup. Still, the market is telling us to bet the bonds, not the team, and it’s probably right.
Soccer bettors seem to have longer memories than investors do. When the latter look at the histories of Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and even France, it’s as though these nations have never defaulted, devalued, or restructured over the last couple of centuries. Compare Spain and Brazil, for example. Brazil’s bonds are yielding 4.22% while Spain’s offer a relatively paltry 2.76%, even though Spain’s economy is a shambles. True, Brazil has also struggled of late, but it has oil, youth, and seemingly higher growth prospects. And unlike Spain, it has major export industries in agriculture and aerospace — not to mention soccer players.
The place where the football bettors and investors correlate more closely is Germany: The former had 5-to-1 odds early on, the latter a 1.38% yield. True, German economic history is not untroubled, but today it is Europe’s champion economy — the strength of which goes a long way toward explaining why European bond rates in general have remained so low. Germany is, in effect, propping up the rest of the European economy. After today’s shutout against the U.S., however, it looks clear that die Mannschaft won’t do anything of the sort on the soccer pitch. If the form plays out, one of the world’s best-run economies will face off with one its worst.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Meet 10 of China’s Most Powerful Women - TIME
http://time.com/2907424/makers-china-10-powerful-women/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29
The critically acclaimed MAKERS series goes to China
After its critical acclaim last year with the documentary MAKERS: Women Who Make America, AOL has taken its storytelling brand to China to highlight women whose accomplishments have shattered expectations and serve as an inspiration to their peers. The selection process was overseen in part by Yang Lan, a broadcast journalist often dubbed the “Oprah of China.”
Li Yinhe
First female sexologist in China
After studying at the University of Pittsburgh, Li became fascinated by the widely available research on American sexual mores, completely absent in her native China. Her book, Their World: a Study of Homosexuality in China, proved iconoclastic for the country.
Gong Li
Actor
Known for films like Raise the Red Lantern and Memoirs of a Geisha, Gong has starred in numerous Chinese films that have won her awards from the Berlin International Film Festival to Cannes. She was named a UNESCO Artist for Peace in 2000.
Fu Ying
Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
After a string of government jobs, Fu became China’s ambassador to the Philippines in 1998, then to Australia in 2003, then to the U.K. in 2007. She’s been praised for her expert handling of the media after western pushback against China’s successful bid to host the Olympics.
Guo Jianmei
First public interest lawyer in China
In 1995, Guo was inspired at the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women by Hillary Clinton’s now-famous maxim: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.” Not long after, she founded a women’s legal aid NGO, which subsequently earned her an award from Clinton as a Woman of Courage.
Li Yan
Short-track speed skating coach
Li won a silver medal in the 1992 Winter Olympics and later went on to coach Apolo Ohno to his gold medal win in the 2006 Winter Olympics. She has coached the Chinese national team through the last two Olympic seasons.
Hu Shuli
Investigative journalist
The editor-in-chief of Caixin Media Company has made a name for herself through hard-hitting journalism—a particularly challenging accomplishment in China. She famously reported on corruption in the financial industry, and has been included on the TIME 100.
Dong Mingzhu
Chairman and president, Gree Electric
Dong rose through the ranks at Gree Electric, first selling air conditioners then overseeing the sales team. She was appointed director of the department in 1994 and increases sales by a factor of seven. This accomplishment paved the way for her to eventually take the top job at the company.
Yang Liping
Dance artist
A dancer from rural China, Yang studied the dance cultures of various Chinese minorities as a young woman. Committed to bringing these traditions to the wider public, she raised money to create and perform her first piece, “Spirit of the Peacock” in the 1980s, and went on to direct, choreograph and perform in blockbuster dance shows throughout China, Europe and the U.S.
Laura Cha Shin May-lung
Former vice-chair of the China Securities Regulatory Commission
After a successful career as a lawyer, first in California then in Hong Kong, she joined the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission and eventually held the position of Deputy Chairman. She then moved on to be vice chair of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, becoming the first non-mainlander in the role.
Yan Geling
Novelist and screenwriter
Yan is known in the U.S. for books like The Banquet Bug and The Lost Daughter of Happiness. Many of her novels have been adapted for films like The Flowers of War, and her stories are highly acclaimed in China.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Why Songs Get Stuck in Your Head - Science of US
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/why-songs-get-stuck-in-your-head.html
By Melissa DahlFollow @melissadahl
![]()
For the last 10 days or so, I’ve been haunted by three little notes, which I fear may be burned into my brain forever: OH AY AHHHH. It’s the little snippet of song that plays before and after commercials during World Cup coverage on TV, and my mind cannot, will not, stop playing it. (Of course, now that I’m writing this thing and actuallywant to hear it, it seems to be impossible to find online.) OH AY AHHHH, I hear as I close my eyes to go to sleep. OH AY AHHHH, I heard as I was running a 10K on Sunday. OH AY AHHHH, my boyfriend and I sing to each other across our apartment, because we’ve lost hope of ever getting this thing out of our heads.
As it turns out, research on earworms — those songs you can’t shake from your mind — suggests that this three-syllable little number may be perfectly structured to get stuck in your head. The makeup of an earworm looks something like this:
It’s short. An earworm tends to be 10 seconds or less, usually just a fragment of a song, said Elizabeth Margulis, author of the book On Repeat: How Music Plays the Mind, on a recent episode of NPR’s Science Friday. Margulis also noted that the people who compose music for ads and TV are well aware of this and exploit it to their benefit.
It’s simple. Another key factor of a sticky song is its simplicity. Research suggests that a song containing longer notes but smaller differences in pitch (in other words, the song doesn’t swing from very high to very low notes) are more likely to play in your head on repeat, which is a description that fits my own current World Cup earworm perfectly. That’s because an earworm is, essentially, your brain singing along to music, and songs with longer notes but without big changes in pitch are easier to “sing.”
It’s played when you’re not really paying attention. In my particular case, the little tune is usually played when the World Cup coverage is either going to or coming back from a commercial break, which means the game is either over or it’s half-time. In other words, it’s played during times when I'm maybe not paying a ton of attention, and that,research shows, is when an earworm can burrow into your brain and grab hold.
How do you kill an earworm? One suggested method is to concentrate deeply on something that requires your full attention. So there is hope! Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), earworms tend to take hold when we hear them played over and over and over, so the song will probably be right back in my head the next time I turn on a game. In conclusion: OH AY AHHHH!
By Melissa DahlFollow @melissadahl
As it turns out, research on earworms — those songs you can’t shake from your mind — suggests that this three-syllable little number may be perfectly structured to get stuck in your head. The makeup of an earworm looks something like this:
It’s short. An earworm tends to be 10 seconds or less, usually just a fragment of a song, said Elizabeth Margulis, author of the book On Repeat: How Music Plays the Mind, on a recent episode of NPR’s Science Friday. Margulis also noted that the people who compose music for ads and TV are well aware of this and exploit it to their benefit.
It’s simple. Another key factor of a sticky song is its simplicity. Research suggests that a song containing longer notes but smaller differences in pitch (in other words, the song doesn’t swing from very high to very low notes) are more likely to play in your head on repeat, which is a description that fits my own current World Cup earworm perfectly. That’s because an earworm is, essentially, your brain singing along to music, and songs with longer notes but without big changes in pitch are easier to “sing.”
It’s played when you’re not really paying attention. In my particular case, the little tune is usually played when the World Cup coverage is either going to or coming back from a commercial break, which means the game is either over or it’s half-time. In other words, it’s played during times when I'm maybe not paying a ton of attention, and that,research shows, is when an earworm can burrow into your brain and grab hold.
How do you kill an earworm? One suggested method is to concentrate deeply on something that requires your full attention. So there is hope! Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), earworms tend to take hold when we hear them played over and over and over, so the song will probably be right back in my head the next time I turn on a game. In conclusion: OH AY AHHHH!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Tax-driven mergers Inverse logic - The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21604555-rush-firms-fleeing-america-tax-reasons-set-continue-inverse-logic?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fpe%2Finverselogic
![]()
AMERICA is a land of immigrants, but some of its biggest companies are keen to emigrate, driven abroad by high tax rates and America’s “worldwide” system of taxation, which grabs a share of their foreign profits. The preferred method of exit is the “tax inversion”, which uses a cross-border merger—generally one that also has some sort of industrial logic—as the pretext for reincorporating in a more tax-friendly place. Medtronic, a maker of medical devices, is the latest and largest firm to change its nationality in this way.
The combined group will be domiciled in low-tax Ireland, the official home of its merger partner, Covidien (see article). But Medtronic’s executives will stay in Minneapolis and Covidien’s will remain in Mansfield, Massachusetts. Covidien, then part of Tyco, left America for Bermuda in 1997 before moving to the Emerald Isle in 2009. The deal thus involves an inversion with a “foreign” firm that has itself already inverted: a sort of “inversion squared”.
Medtronic’s planned inversion is less about reducing the percentage of profits that it pays in corporation tax—which will be only slightly lower after the union—than freeing up some of the $20 billion of foreign earnings that the firm is loth to bring home because Uncle Sam would grab 35% of it. Medtronic has borrowed heavily at home (rather than repatriate foreign earnings and trigger extra tax payments) to finance share buy-backs and dividends. With this deal it can use its foreign cash both to reduce its debt and to finance the acquisition itself, engaging in “hopscotch” transactions that funnel cash from non-American subsidiaries to the Irish holding company, missing out the American layers, says Edward Kleinbard of the University of Southern California.
Wall Street analysts applaud this sort of intra-group shuffling, as it makes capital deployment more “flexible”, typically boosting the share price. Another advantage is that in future the group’s American arms will be able to issue debt, use the proceeds to pay dividends and take an interest deduction that is not taxable in America under its tax treaty with Ireland.
America has tried several times to stop companies fleeing abroad through tax inversion, with limited success. Rules introduced a decade ago required the foreign partner to be worth at least 20% of the combined group. That helped stem the outflow of firms inverting with shell companies in tax-free Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But it left American multinationals with various options for mergers with smaller firms based in places with low corporate taxes, such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Britain, as long as the target firms had some employees and offices (“substance”, in tax-speak) in those countries.
Bills introduced in Congress this year by Democrats have proposed raising the 20% threshold to 50%; in other words, the foreign partner would have to be as big as the American one for the inversion to stand. The change would be applied retroactively, from May this year.
Were the bills to pass, this latest deal would be blocked, as Covidien investors will own just 30% of the new entity. This is unlikely, since the bills will not win the Republican votes they need unless they are part of a broader tax reform. Still, inverting companies are taking no chances. Medtronic’s agreement with Covidien gives it the right to cancel the deal if Congress rewrites tax laws in a way that deems the merged group an American taxpayer.
There will be more reincorporations, regardless of what happens in Washington. A group of Walgreen shareholders is pushing the drugstore chain to redomicile in Switzerland, for instance. InterContinental Hotels of Britain is reportedly being stalked by an American bidder seeking to invert. Companies have grown more creative in getting around new rules—for instance, structuring deals as private buy-outs to dodge curbs on inversions carried out by means of a public offering.
Tax lawyers already have wheezes up their sleeves in case the Democrats’ 50% rule does pass. An American firm can keep its stake below half, even if its partner is smaller, by taking a chunk of cash in return for the reduced stake—as Mondelez International is doing in a tie-up of its coffee division with Douwe Egberts, a Dutch rival.
Lawmakers are likely to find that simply trying to prevent inversions just leads to more cat-and-mouse games with corporate tax-planners. It would be better to reduce the incentive to leave America by cutting its corporate tax rate to around 25% (partially paid for by hacking away the current thicket of corporate allowances) and moving to a “territorial” system that taxes only domestic profits, as most other countries do. Among other benefits, this would encourage American firms to bring home their foreign profits to invest them in America. Until then, inversions will remain on boards’ agendas. With so much at stake—each percentage-point cut in Medtronic’s tax bill adds $60m to its bottom line—the temptation is simply too great.
The rush of firms fleeing America for tax reasons is set to continue
Jun 21st 2014 | NEW YORK | From the print editionThe combined group will be domiciled in low-tax Ireland, the official home of its merger partner, Covidien (see article). But Medtronic’s executives will stay in Minneapolis and Covidien’s will remain in Mansfield, Massachusetts. Covidien, then part of Tyco, left America for Bermuda in 1997 before moving to the Emerald Isle in 2009. The deal thus involves an inversion with a “foreign” firm that has itself already inverted: a sort of “inversion squared”.
I
Medtronic’s planned inversion is less about reducing the percentage of profits that it pays in corporation tax—which will be only slightly lower after the union—than freeing up some of the $20 billion of foreign earnings that the firm is loth to bring home because Uncle Sam would grab 35% of it. Medtronic has borrowed heavily at home (rather than repatriate foreign earnings and trigger extra tax payments) to finance share buy-backs and dividends. With this deal it can use its foreign cash both to reduce its debt and to finance the acquisition itself, engaging in “hopscotch” transactions that funnel cash from non-American subsidiaries to the Irish holding company, missing out the American layers, says Edward Kleinbard of the University of Southern California.
Wall Street analysts applaud this sort of intra-group shuffling, as it makes capital deployment more “flexible”, typically boosting the share price. Another advantage is that in future the group’s American arms will be able to issue debt, use the proceeds to pay dividends and take an interest deduction that is not taxable in America under its tax treaty with Ireland.
America has tried several times to stop companies fleeing abroad through tax inversion, with limited success. Rules introduced a decade ago required the foreign partner to be worth at least 20% of the combined group. That helped stem the outflow of firms inverting with shell companies in tax-free Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But it left American multinationals with various options for mergers with smaller firms based in places with low corporate taxes, such as Ireland, the Netherlands and Britain, as long as the target firms had some employees and offices (“substance”, in tax-speak) in those countries.
Bills introduced in Congress this year by Democrats have proposed raising the 20% threshold to 50%; in other words, the foreign partner would have to be as big as the American one for the inversion to stand. The change would be applied retroactively, from May this year.
Were the bills to pass, this latest deal would be blocked, as Covidien investors will own just 30% of the new entity. This is unlikely, since the bills will not win the Republican votes they need unless they are part of a broader tax reform. Still, inverting companies are taking no chances. Medtronic’s agreement with Covidien gives it the right to cancel the deal if Congress rewrites tax laws in a way that deems the merged group an American taxpayer.
There will be more reincorporations, regardless of what happens in Washington. A group of Walgreen shareholders is pushing the drugstore chain to redomicile in Switzerland, for instance. InterContinental Hotels of Britain is reportedly being stalked by an American bidder seeking to invert. Companies have grown more creative in getting around new rules—for instance, structuring deals as private buy-outs to dodge curbs on inversions carried out by means of a public offering.
Tax lawyers already have wheezes up their sleeves in case the Democrats’ 50% rule does pass. An American firm can keep its stake below half, even if its partner is smaller, by taking a chunk of cash in return for the reduced stake—as Mondelez International is doing in a tie-up of its coffee division with Douwe Egberts, a Dutch rival.
Lawmakers are likely to find that simply trying to prevent inversions just leads to more cat-and-mouse games with corporate tax-planners. It would be better to reduce the incentive to leave America by cutting its corporate tax rate to around 25% (partially paid for by hacking away the current thicket of corporate allowances) and moving to a “territorial” system that taxes only domestic profits, as most other countries do. Among other benefits, this would encourage American firms to bring home their foreign profits to invest them in America. Until then, inversions will remain on boards’ agendas. With so much at stake—each percentage-point cut in Medtronic’s tax bill adds $60m to its bottom line—the temptation is simply too great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
