Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Kushner Family Stands to Gain From Visa Rules in Trump’s First Major Law - New York Times

Kushner Family Stands to Gain From Visa Rules in Trump’s First Major Law

By ERIC LIPTON and JESSE DRUCKER
MAY 8, 2017
WASHINGTON — It was the first major piece of legislation that President Trump signed into law, and buried on Page 734was one sentence that brought a potential benefit to the president’s extended family: renewal of a program offering permanent residence in the United States to affluent foreigners investing money in real estate projects here.
Just hours after the appropriations measure was signed on Friday, the company run until January by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, was urging wealthy Chinese in Beijing to consider investing $500,000 each in a pair of Jersey City luxury apartment towers the family-owned Kushner Companies plans to build. Mr. Kushner was even cited at a marketing presentation by his sister Nicole Meyer, who was on her way to China even before the bill was signed. The project “means a lot to me and my entire family,” she told the prospective investors.
The sequence of events offers one of the most explicit examples to date of the peril of the Trump and Kushner families maintaining close ties to their business interests and creates an impression they stand to profit off Mr. Trump’s presence in the White House. It also illustrates the problems of the so-called EB-5 visa program that prominent Republican and Democratic members of Congress want changed.
“It is just one more dilemma that a family with vast commercial interest has when relatives are in the federal government, particularly the White House,” said Michael H. Cardozo, who served as a deputy White House counsel in the Carter administration, which struggled with its own controversies related to the president’s brother, Billy Carter, and his work on behalf of an American company seeking to get into the oil industry in Libya. “The actions of relatives can come back and bite those serving those in the government.”
Bipartisan critics in Washington say they want to revamp the visa program because it is often abused. It supports high-end luxury projects, like the Kushner family deal, instead of promoting job creation in rural America or distressed urban areas, as it was intended. It has also been criticized by federal regulators for insufficient safeguards against illicit money coming into the United States; in the case of one applicant, they found potential financial ties to a string of Chinese brothels.

There is no assertion that Mr. Kushner broke any conflict-of-interest rule; but the law does not prevent his relatives from attempting to exploit those ties to benefit the family business.
Mr. Kushner’s portfolio includes a central role on China policy. That role has heightened the Kushner family name in a nation accounting for more than 80 percent of the EB-5 visas issued. Wealthy Chinese see the program as an easy way to legally move to the United States.
In fact, Kushner Companies — when Mr. Kushner was still at the helm — had received $50 million in EB-5 financing for a separate New Jersey project, a Trump-branded luxury high-rise tower in Jersey City that opened late last year.
On Monday, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, called the visa program “a stark conflict of interest for the Trump White House.” Meanwhile, the ethics watchdog group Democracy 21 called for Mr. Kushner to recuse himself from all policy dealing with China. The group had previously called for Mr. Kushner to make public a full list of his family firm’s overseas business partners and lenders as well as a full divestiture of his business assets into a blind trust.
After a surge in attention to the topic over the weekend, a spokesman for Mr. Trump said on Monday that the president also endorses changes to the visa program, including perhaps increasing the price foreigners must pay to get the special immigration status. A White House statement said the administration “is evaluating wholesale reform of the EB-5 program to ensure that the program is used as intended and that investment is being spread to all areas of the country.”
The statement also said that Mr. Kushner, who is married to Ivanka Trump, has recused himself from EB-5 related matters: “Jared takes the ethics rules very seriously and would never compromise himself or the administration.” In a statement from Kushner Companies, Mr. Kushner’s sister said it was not her intent to mention her brother as a way to lure investors.
Other family members of presidents have created stirs in past decades — including Neil M. Bush, President George Bush’s son — as they have engaged in outside business ventures that intersected with the federal government. Hillary Clinton’s brother Anthony Rodham was once cited for inappropriate appeals to government officials about a grant through this very same visa program.

But the matters involving Mr. Kushner, the White House and Kushner Companies are different. None of those previous presidential relatives took jobs in the White House while simultaneously benefiting from a multibillion dollar business with international partners, who also stand to benefit from federal programs.
Although Mr. Kushner has shed stakes in some of the company’s investments, he has retained most of his interest, as the main beneficiary of a series of trusts invested in the firm’s various projects. His stake, along with some other investments, is worth as much as $600 million, and possibly much more, according to a government ethics disclosure form made public by Mr. Kushner in March. But Kushner Companies has declined to make public a list of its partners.
The firm has received investments or loans from around the world, including Goldman Sachs, the Blackstone Group, Deutsche Bank and Israel’s Bank Hapoalim, the subject of a United States Justice Department tax investigation. Last month, The New York Times reported that the Kushners had partnered with at least one member of Israel’s wealthy Steinmetz family. The family’s most well-known member, Beny Steinmetz, is the subject of a Justice Department investigation into alleged bribes.
And in March, Mr. Kushner’s firm said it ended talks with Anbang Insurance Group, a Chinese company with ties to ruling members of the country’s Communist Party. Those talks began around the time President Trump secured the Republican nomination and also raised questions because of the potentially favorable terms for Kushner Companies.
When it was created in 1990, the EB-5 visa program was intended to provide a new source of financing for projects in underserved areas, defined as places with high unemployment. But there are no federal standards for defining such neighborhoods. And developers often provide gerrymandered maps to qualify under the program.
The Kushner project in Jersey City “is a textbook example of the abuses we have seen in the last six or seven years,” said Shae Armstrong, a Dallas lawyer who has joined with members of Congress, including Senators Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Ms. Feinstein, to call for changes in the program.

That part of Jersey City, less than three miles from Manhattan, is hardly an economically depressed area, and a luxury apartment building is going to create few permanent jobs. “And it is why other towns in rural America are not getting EB-5 money,” Mr. Armstrong said.
Indeed, in the Beijing presentation delivered by Mr. Kushner’s sister, the firm cited the high household income of the majority of the residents — between $100,000 and $200,000 — in the Trump-branded building that has already received EB-5 financing.
The $1 billion Kushner project at the center of the current controversy is a set of high-rise towers — including 1,730 apartments and 89,000 square feet of retail space. The company is seeking $150 million through the EB-5 program.
Traditional lenders can charge interest of 12 to 18 percent, said Gary Friedland, a professor at New York University who has written extensively about the program. But EB-5 loans can wind up costing developers as little as 4 percent, he said.
“The immigrant investor’s primary purpose is to secure a visa, so they accept minimal interest, as low as half a percent,” Mr. Friedland said.
For developers, said Steve Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University, the appeal of EB-5 can be summed up in two words: “Cheap money.”
Eric Lipton reported from Washington, and Jesse Drucker from New York. Javier C. Hernandez contributed reporting from Beijing.


NYT

Monday, May 8, 2017

Why wealthy Chinese are lining up to pay $500k for U.S. visas - CNN Money

Why wealthy Chinese are lining up to pay $500k for U.S. visas
By Alec Macfarlane May 8, 2017: 7:51 AM ET
The Kushner family wants a piece of the huge tide of money that's been flowing out of China.
Over the weekend, the Kushners' business was trying to drum up millions of dollars in Chinese investment for a New Jersey skyscraper project. To do so, they're promoting a program that allows people to pay big money to emigrate to the U.S.
Wealthy Chinese citizens have been falling over themselves to participate in the EB-5 program, which makes immigrants eligible to apply for a green card if they invest over $500,000 in a project that creates U.S. jobs.
It has attracted tens of thousands of applicants and billions of dollars from China in recent years. 
Chinese citizens have snapped up more than 80% of the visas issued under the program since 2011, according to Invest in the USA, an industry association, and there's a huge backlog of applications.
Growing middle class
China's growing middle class is attracted by the prospect of better opportunities for their children and what they perceive as a safer place to funnel some of their money, according to industry experts.
"Chinese people are pretty affluent now," said Stella Guo, a marketing director at CanAchieve Consultants, which helps Chinese clients obtain visas under the EB-5 program. "Their main reason for wanting to immigrate is ... for their kids' education."
The program, which has been around since 1990, is big business for developers like Kushner Companies, whose former CEO, Jared Kushner, is President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser. The firm has alreadyraised money from Chinese investors through the EB-5 program for another tower in New Jersey, which licensed the Trump name.
Jared Kushner has stepped away from the business since taking a key role in Trump's White House. His attorney, Blake Roberts, said Kushner is not involved in the operation of Kushner Companies and divested his interests in the New Jersey project by selling them to a family trust that he, his wife and his children are not beneficiaries of, which was suggested by the Office of Government Ethics. 
Chinese investors often seek a country offering a Western education system and better quality of life than China. After Australia and Canada changed their immigration rules, the U.S. program is one of the cheapest and least restrictive, according to experts.
"It's the usual reasons: education, political uncertainty, pollution, quality of life issues, and how much bang can you get for your buck," said Eugene Chow, an immigration lawyer at Chow King & Associates in Hong Kong.
Three-year waiting list
The EB-5 program also gives wealthy Chinese the opportunity to move a big chunk of their savings abroad at a time of uncertainty about the future of the world's second-largest economy.
But soaring Chinese demand in recent years has made the visas increasingly hard to obtain. Only 10,000 people a year are granted one, and the U.S. government has limited the number that can be issued to citizens of a particular country in a single year.
That's helped drive up the waiting time for Chinese investors to around three years, according to immigration law firm Wolfsdorf Rosenthal. 
And the big investments in U.S. projects don't always work out.
"It's not the best vehicle for getting into America, although it could be the right one for certain Chinese who don't care about losing a half a million so long as they get their green cards," Chow said.
That may be the case for the super rich. But according to Guo, the money matters a lot to the growing numbers of middle class Chinese applicants.
"They care about the cost, they care about the green card, they care about the security of their investment," she said.
Under fire in the U.S.
The program has stoked controversy in the U.S. 
President Trump has taken a tough stance on immigration and vowed to severely tighten the use of work visas. The EB-5 program has come under fire by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
A Government Accountability Office report has found that the program is susceptible to fraud. Its defenders say it's created or sustained hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
Last week, Congress extended the program without any changes until Sept. 30.
In Beijing on Saturday, potential investors in the Kushner project were told they should act quickly because the minimum investment for the EB-5 program could go up. 
In January, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security proposed increasing the amount to $1.35 million from $500,000, which experts say has caused an additional flurry of applications. 
But interest isn't expected to wane even if the price goes up.
"We have every reason to believe there will continue to be a lot of demand for visas for the U.S. from Chinese investors," said Dave Platter, global communications director at Juwai.com, a property search engine that lists real estate around the world for Chinese buyers.

-- David McKenzie contributed to this report.

Eric Trump said 'we have all the funding we need out of Russia', golf writer claims - Independent

Eric Trump said 'we have all the funding we need out of Russia', golf writer claims
A journalist recalled the statements from the now-President and his son during a trip to North Carolina
Eric Trump allegedly revealed in a 2014 interview that Russia funded the family's golf resorts "all the time".
The President also reportedly told the same journalist that the family had “access to $100 million” for their newest course in North Carolina.
Golf writer James Dodson revealed the claims this month in an interview with a Boston radio station, explaining that he had met Donald Trump and his son three years ago when he was invited to play golf at their Trump National Charlotte course.
 Mr Dodson said he had asked the now-President how he had secured funding for the courses, and Mr Trump “sort of tossed off that he had access to $100 million”.
The journalist then followed up with Eric Trump, who was also on the resort that day, during a ride in a golf cart.
“I said, 'Eric, who’s funding? I know no banks — because of the recession, the Great Recession — have touched a golf course. You know, no one’s funding any kind of golf construction. It’s dead in the water the last four or five years.'”  the writer said.
“And this is what he said. He said, 'Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.' I said, 'Really?' And he said, 'Oh, yeah. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programmes. We just go there all the time.’”
The revelations come amid several congressional committees' investigations into alleged ties between the Trump administration and Russia.
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied any ties, claiming he had no business or investments in the country, but he has failed to provide his tax returns which would prove his claims.
The President has suffered several set-backs due to the Russia investigation, including the resignation of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who misled Vice President Mike Pence about the nature and timing of his phone calls to the Russian ambassador.

Independent 

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Donald Trump’s healthcare bill is an abomination and the Republicans who voted for it must be held accountable - Washington Post

Donald Trump’s healthcare bill is an abomination and the Republicans who voted for it must be held accountable
This is one of the most important moments in recent political history

Paul Waldman Friday 5 May 2017 08:08 BSTThe healthcare bill that the House of Representatives passed yesterday afternoon, in an incredibly narrow 217-to-213 vote, is not just wrong, or misguided, or problematic or foolish. It is an abomination. If there has been a piece of legislation in our lifetimes that boiled over with as much malice and indifference to human suffering, I can't recall what it might have been. And every member of the House who voted for it must be held accountable.
There's certainly a process critique one can make about this bill. We might focus on the fact that Republicans are rushing to pass it without having held a single hearing on it, without a score from the Congressional Budget Office that would tell us exactly what the effects would be, and before nearly anyone has had a chance to even look at the bill's actual text - all this despite the fact that they are remaking one-sixth of the American economy and affecting all of our lives (and despite their long and ridiculous claims that the Affordable Care Act was “rammed through” Congress, when in fact it was debated for an entire year and was the subject of dozens of hearings and endless public discussion).
We might talk about how every major stakeholder group - the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the AARP, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, and on and on - all oppose the bill.All that matters. But the real problem is what's in the bill itself. Here are some of the things it does:
Takes health insurance away from at least 24 million Americans; that was the number the CBO estimated for a previous version of the bill, and the number for this one is probably higher.
Revokes the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid, which provided no-cost health coverage to millions of low-income Americans.
Turns Medicaid into a block grant, enabling states to kick otherwise-eligible people off their coverage and cut benefits if they so choose.
Slashes Medicaid overall by $880 billion over 10 years.
Removes the subsidies that the ACA provided to help middle-income people afford health insurance, replacing them with far more meagre tax credits pegged not to people's income but to their age. Poorer people would get less than they do now, while richer people would get more; even Bill Gates would get a tax credit.
Allows insurers to charge dramatically higher premiums to older patients.
Allows insurers to impose yearly and lifetime caps on coverage, which were outlawed by the ACA. This also, it was revealed today, may threaten the coverage of the majority of non-elderly Americans who get insurance through their employers.
Allows states to seek waivers from the ACA's requirement that insurance plans include essential benefits for things such as emergency services, hospitalisation, mental health care, preventive care, maternity care, and substance abuse treatment.
Provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for families making over $250,000 a year.
Produces higher deductibles for patients.
Allows states to try to waive the ACA's requirement that insurers must charge people the same rates regardless of their medical history. This effectively eviscerates the ban on denials for preexisting conditions, since insurers could charge you exorbitant premiums if you have a preexisting condition, effectively denying you coverage.
Shunts those with preexisting conditions into high-risk pools, which are absolutely the worst way to cover those patients; experience with them on the state level proves that they wind up underfunded, charge enormous premiums, provide inadequate benefits and can't cover the population they're meant for. Multiple analyses have shown that the money the bill provides for high-risk pools is laughably inadequate, which will inevitably leave huge numbers of the most vulnerable Americans without the ability to get insurance.
Brings back medical underwriting, meaning that just like in the bad old days, when you apply for insurance you'll have to document every condition or ailment you've ever had.
It is no exaggeration to say that if it were to become law, this bill would kill significant numbers of Americans. People who lose their Medicaid, don't go to the doctor, and wind up finding out too late that they're sick. People whose serious conditions put them up against lifetime limits or render them unable to afford what's on offer in the high-risk pools, and are suddenly unable to get treatment.Those deaths are not abstractions, and those who vote to bring them about must be held to account. This can and should be a career-defining vote for every member of the House. No one who votes for something this vicious should be allowed to forget it - ever. They should be challenged about it at every town hall meeting, at every campaign debate, in every election and every day as the letters and phone calls from angry and betrayed constituents make clear the intensity of their revulsion at what their representatives have done.
Perhaps this bill will never become law, and its harm may be averted. But that would not mitigate the moral responsibility of those who supported it. Members of Congress vote on a lot of inconsequential bills and bills that have a small impact on limited areas of American life. But this is one of the most critical moments in recent American political history. The Republican health-care bill is an act of monstrous cruelty. It should stain those who supported it to the end of their days.

Copyright The Washington Post

10 Charges You Should Never Put on Your Credit Card - Fortune

10 Charges You Should Never Put on Your Credit Card
Mar 14, 2017


Even though building credit and racking up credit card rewards can be great for your finances in general, there are some things you should never put on your credit card because you can incur big fees and higher interest rates. Avoid putting the following expenses on credit cards so that you don't end up making it harder for yourself to get out of debt.

1. Mortgage Payments
If you've ever wondered, "Can I pay my mortgage with a credit card?", the answer is maybe, but that doesn't make it a good idea. If you're low on cash one month, it might be tempting to pay your mortgage payment with a credit card that has a high credit limit. But there are problems with this thinking.
For one, some mortgage companies won't let you make direct payments with a credit card. Although some third-party companies will help you use your credit card to pay your mortgage, they often charge fees for this convenience — which will just add to the amount you're paying in bills each month.
Should you be able to circumvent your mortgage servicer and find a way to pay your mortgage with a credit card, it's still a bad idea if you don't plan on paying off your credit card balance in full each month: You're already being charged interest on your mortgage, so paying more interest on your credit card balance is both expensive and avoidable.
Lastly, charging a large amount to your credit card will lower the amount of credit available to you, which could lower your credit score. This could also happen if you choose to pay your property taxes with credit cards.
2. Small Indulgences
Sure, it can be convenient to whip out your credit card whenever you buy a cup of coffee or a sandwich at the deli. And sometimes, depending on the cash-back credit card or rewards credit card you use, you're even rewarded for purchases with free cash or airline miles.
But if you swipe your credit card for every small purchase, your credit card balance could grow out of control. And the higher your balance, the harder it will be to pay off or even afford the minimum payment. At the end of the month, you'll be left wondering if those 20 lattes were really worth it. Plus, some store owners will charge a fee if you use your credit card to purchase items under a certain amount of money, typically less than $5.
Instead of using your credit card to pay for small, discretionary items, consider using cash. Not only will it save you from running up your balance, but it'll help you stick to a budget. By only using cash for small purchases, you'll likely spend less.
3. Cash Advances
A cash advance is a withdrawal or a short-term loan in which you're borrowing against your credit card account. If possible, avoid taking a credit card cash advance — or else you might be subject to high fees and interest rates. Your APR and fees will vary depending on your bank and credit card issuer, but in general, the APR on a cash advance is higher than a purchase APR.
For example, you might have a credit card that charges a purchase APR of 11.00% or 12.00%. However, the APR for cash advances might be 2 or 3 percentage points higher. And, your fees might equal $10 or a small percentage of each transaction — whichever is greater. This is why many personal finance experts highly discourage getting a cash advance from your credit card.
Of course, some situations call for a cash advance — but these should be for emergencies only. And always look for a credit card that offers low interest and fees for cash advances.
4. Household Bills
Some strong arguments exist for putting household bills — such as utilities — on a credit card. Your department of water and power, for example, might let you pay your bills online with a credit card without being charged a fee for the service. So it might be tempting to link your credit card to the account to get rewards. And if your servicer lets you use automatic payments to pay your bills with a credit card, that's one less bill you don't have to remember to pay on time.
Still, relying on credit cards to pay too many of your household bills could get you in financial trouble, especially if you have a bad habit of not checking your credit card balance, which could lead to a missed credit card payment, interest charges and late fees.
Consider linking your debit card instead. But again, make sure you regularly watch your checking account. Otherwise, your balance might fall into the negatives if you don't have enough money in your account to cover your bills, and you might get stuck having to ask your bank to waive overdraft fees.
5. Medical Bills
When you don't have enough money to pay for medical bills, one of the worst things that you can do is put them on your credit card. Medical care is expensive, and paying for it with a credit card that charges high interest on top of this is could be a bad idea.

If you have large medical bills that you can't pay immediately, don't automatically pull out your credit card. Instead, contact the hospital's financial office and see if you can set up a payment plan or negotiate medical bills. Chances are, you will be paying much less in interest to the hospital than your credit card issuer will charge you.
6. College Tuition
College tuition is expensive. In fact, it might outweigh the cost of living, depending on where you live. If you're a broke college student, it can be convenient to pay your tuition with a credit card, but think again.
If you don't have a steady paycheck to rely on, you might not be able to pay off your credit card before you incur interest. Plus, many schools will tack on a convenience fee of 2 percent or even 3 percent for paying your tuition with a credit card.

Bottom line: It's not worth it. If you're having trouble making your tuition payments on time, talk to someone in your school's financial aid office. They'll fill you in on the types of low-interest student loans, grants, scholarships or work-study programs available to you to help pay your education costs.
7. Your Taxes
Although it's possible — and perfectly legal — to pay your debt to Uncle Sam with a credit card, there's an excellent reason why you shouldn't: Your tax processor will likely charge you a convenience fee of around 2 percent for using a credit card. If you owe Uncle Sam thousands of dollars, a 2 percent fee can really add up.

The IRS currently lists fees that vary depending on your payment processor. If you use a debit card to pay your taxes via Pay1040.com, the IRS states you'll be charged a $2.59 flat fee. But if you pay your taxes with a credit card, the fee jumps to 1.87 percent, with a minimum fee of $2.59. Meanwhile, paying with a debit credit via PayUSAtax.com requires a $2.65 flat fee; using a credit card will incur a 1.98 percent fee, with a minimum fee of $2.69.
8. Automobiles
Some people claim to have used a credit card to pay for a car — and they don't regret it, partially because they earned tons of points after doing so. Additionally, Consumer Reports advises that you pay your car down payment with a credit card because if the auto dealer goes out of a business, you can challenge the payment with your credit card issuer.
Still, don't resort to this payment method unless you're confident you can afford it and possibly high-interest charges. If you don't have enough money for a down payment, perhaps you should delay your car purchase or find a used or new car you can afford more easily. Ask a financial advisor and speak with the car dealership first to make sure they'll accept your credit card payment.
9. Down Payments of Any Kind
Reconsider using a credit card for a down payment on anything, including a house or a car. For one, you can't typically use a credit card to pay your house down payment. You can, however, use it to get a cash advance to pay for it — but that's not a good idea either.
If the only reason you want to use a credit card for a down payment is because you can take advantage of your card's high credit limit, that might be a sign that you can't really afford the down payment. And if you don't have the money for the down payment on a loan, don't get the loan. Otherwise, you're just adding a large cost to the sales price of your item — the high-interest rate charges.
A large purchase like a down payment can dramatically change your debt-to-income ratio, which can lead to a change in your credit score. If your credit card balance is too high in comparison to your credit limit, your credit score might suffer. The same is true if you miss payments because you lose control of your account balance.
10. Your Business Startup Expenses
Using your personal credit card to pay for business expenses or to finance startup costs can be a bad idea. It generally takes at least several years for a business to become profitable, and in the meantime, you might be paying extraordinarily high interest on debt that you cannot afford to pay back immediately. And if your business fails, you might be in deep credit card debt.
Sure, there are some upsides to using a credit card for business expenses. But if you do need to borrow a lot of money to kick off your business, you might be better off getting a small business loan. Interest rates on credit cards are typically higher than rates on traditional loans, according to Entrepreneur.com.
An even better idea: See if you can raise money through a crowdfunding website or through friends and family.
This article originally appeared on GoBankingRates.com.











Saturday, May 6, 2017

Stock Market Reaches Record Highs After Positive April Jobs Report - TIME

Posted: 05 May 2017 02:17 PM PDT

(NEW YORK) — A solid pickup in hiring last month helped push the stock market to record highs Friday. The gains were driven by energy, technology and industrial companies.
The Labor Department told investors what they had hoped to hear: employers added more workers last month after a sluggish beginning to the year.
Energy companies rose as the price of oil recovered from losses earlier in the week. Media companies like CBS and Charter Communications recovered from their losses earlier in the week. Technology companies rose, but IBM missed out after billionaire investor Warren Buffett said he sold a large part of his stake in the company.

After a quiet morning, stocks rose in the afternoon and the S&P 500 finished above the all-time high close it set March 1.
Scott Wren, senior global equity strategist at Wells Fargo’s Investment Institute, said stocks benefited from the combination of greater hiring and slower wage growth because if wages rise too quickly it will affect corporate profits.
“The market is likely to be concerned about wage gains and the impact on corporate margins as we move into 2018,” he said.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 index climbed 9.77 points, or 0.4 percent, to 2,399.29. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 55.47 points, or 0.3 percent, to 21,006.94.
The Nasdaq composite jumped 25.42 points, or 0.4 percent, to 6,100.76, which beat a record it set earlier this week. The Russell 2000 index of smaller-company stocks added 8.15 points, or 0.6 percent, to 1,397.
Employers in the United States added 211,000 jobs in April, according to the Labor Department. That comes after slow hiring over the first three months of the year and sluggish economic growth.
Energy companies bounced back as the price of oil steadied. After two steep losses in three days, benchmark U.S. crude oil jumped 70 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $46.22 a barrel in New York. Brent crude, the standard for international oil prices, added 72 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $49.10 barrel in London. Oil prices had fallen earlier this week as investors wonder if OPEC will extend a deal that trimmed oil production.
Occidental Petroleum rose $2.38, or 4.1 percent, to $60.40 and Transocean jumped 84 cents, or 8.1 percent, to $11.18. Baker Hughes gained $1.92, or 3.3 percent, to $59.33.
Apple jumped $2.43, or 1.7 percent, to $148.96, another record for the world’s most valuable publicly-traded company. That helped tech stocks move higher.
Basic materials makers advanced. Dow Chemical gained $1.67, or 2.7 percent, to $63.09 and gas supplier Praxair rose $3.16, or 2.5 percent, to $129.48. Fertilizer maker CF Industries climbed $1.35, or 5 percent, to $28.42.
CBS announced a bigger profit and more revenue than analysts expected, and its stock gained $1.35, or 2.1 percent, to $65.20. Media companies have struggled the last few days as investors worried about declining cable ad revenue. Charter Communications, Scripps Networks and Tegna all traded higher.
IBM fell after Warren Buffett said he’s sold about 25 million shares of the technology and consulting company, about a third of the stake that his Berkshire Hathaway company had owned. Buffett started buying IBM stock in 2011. IBM faces stiff competition from companies including Microsoft and Amazon, which have focused on cloud computing services. IBM reached an all-time high of $215 in early 2013 and closed at $155.05 Friday, down $4, or 2.5 percent.
Cosmetics maker Revlon plunged after its sales in North America fell during the first quarter. That affected all parts of its business, as its consumer and professional divisions both reported smaller profits and lower sales than they did a year ago. Revlon bought Elizabeth Arden in September, and sales for that business were about the same as they had been a year ago. The stock had its worst day since 2008 as it gave up $5.95, or 23.6 percent, to $19.30.
Biotech drug companies slipped. Biogen dropped $6.45, or 2.4 percent, to $262.15 and Incyte sank $2.69, or 2.1 percent, to $122.41. Celgene fell $2.05, or 1.6 percent, also closing at $122.41.
Bond prices held steady. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note remained 2.35 percent. High-dividend stocks did fairly well. Telecommunications companies recovered from a hard loss the day before, and utility companies also rose. Banks traded lower.
Gold dipped $1.70 to $1,226.90 an ounce. The precious metal fell more than 3 percent this week for its biggest decline since right after the presidential election. Silver lost 3 cents to $16.27 an ounce. Copper rose 2 cents to $2.53 a pound.
In other energy trading, wholesale gasoline rose 2 cents to $1.50 a gallon. Heating oil added 2 cents to $1.44 a gallon. Natural gas jumped 8 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $3.27 per 1,000 cubic feet.
The dollar rose to 112.61 yen from 112.42 yen. The euro climbed $1.0990 from $1.0981.
France’s CAC 40 jumped another 1.1 percent as investors hoped centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron will be elected president over the weekend. The CAC 40 is at its highest level since early 2008. Britain’s FTSE 100 was up 0.7 percent and Germany’s DAX added 0.5 percent. The Hang Seng in Hong Kong lost 0.8 percent. Markets in Japan and South Korea were closed for holidays.

A CEO Explains Why He Doesn’t Care About Your Résumé, Your Alma Mater, or Your Last Job When He’s Looking to Hire - Business Insider

Posted: 05 May 2017 03:00 AM PDT

For United Shore CEO Mat Ishbia, it’s not about what you know.
Ishbia says that specific skills, such as salesmanship, graphic design, or programming, can be taught. Those don’t guarantee whether or not a candidate will succeed at the Troy, Mich.-based financial services business.
“I don’t care about your résumé,” Ishbia says. “I don’t care about what school you went to. I don’t care about what you did at your last company.”
So, what does matter to Ishbia? Two things: work ethic and attitude.
“It doesn’t matter if you went to Harvard or you went to a community college or you didn’t go to college,” he told Business Insider. “What I care about is your work ethic and attitude. That’s what’s going to dictate your success at our company and your success in life, in our opinion.”

Ishbia says that his company has a rather unusual way of vetting attitude and work ethic.
United Shore has its own on-site, mortgage-themed escape room (a game that requires participants to gather hidden clues and solve puzzles and brainteasers in order to “escape” a locked room). Prospective employees interviewing for some positions—he doesn’t like to say which—must “escape” the room before they receive a job offer.
This particular escape room’s not all fun and games, according to Ishbia. Hidden among eight or so candidates is a “mole”—a United Shore recruiter.
He says that a person’s work style and personality will usually shine through as they work piecing together the puzzles and clues. The whole exercise is meant to give recruiters a sense of what candidates will truly fit in with the company’s culture, which prizes drive and teamwork.
“Some people take the bull by the horns and actually do things, some collaborate well and work well together, and others kind of just do their own thing and aren’t team players,” Ishbia says.”That recruiter is really able to measure leadership.”
This story originally appeared on Business Insider.

Some of the Best Available Mutual Funds Are Now Off Limits to Millions of Investors - TIME Business


Posted: 04 May 2017 09:37 AM PDT

The largest brokerage in the country, Morgan Stanley, is cutting off access to the only mutual funds that investors seem to want to buy.
Vanguard was the best-selling mutual fund manager last year—with roughly $183 billion in net new assets flowing into its mutual funds, according to Morningstar. MONEY frequently recommends its low-cost, no-frills indexing approach—championed by its founder, Jack Bogle—and has placed almost 20 of its funds on the MONEY 50, an annual list of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds we recommend using to build a long-lasting portfolio.
But starting next week, Morgan Stanley will not permit its 15,800 financial advisors (currently the biggest team of brokers in the U.S.) to sell customers shares of Vanguard’s mutual funds, a company spokeswoman confirmed Thursday.

As first reported by industry website AdvisorHub, Morgan Stanley customers who are not already invested in Vanguard will not be able to buy new shares of the company’s conventional mutual funds starting on Monday. Those with existing Vanguard shares will not be immediately yanked out of the funds, but they only will be able to increase their positions through early next year.
The follows Morgan Stanley’s announcement in April that it would be pursuing a series of pricing, policy and product changes spurred by the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, which would require advisors to act in their clients’ best interests when working on retirement assets. “These changes are designed to reduce client costs, ensure we are offering top quality products to clients, and reduce the potential for conflicts of interest,” said the company, which says it has 3.4 million clients. The company did not explain how eliminating a line of low-cost funds would help reduce client costs.
After the cuts, the firm will offer about 2,300 funds.
Morgan Stanley’s move is seen as retaliation against Vanguard over its refusal to pay the brokerage for access on its advisor platform, AdvisorHub reports. (Last May, Merrill Lynch made a similar decision to remove Vanguard mutual funds from the funds available for advisors to sell to clients.) It’s not unlike what happens when cable companies threaten to cut certain channels when contract negotiations break down.
“It’s unfortunate that certain advisors and then therefore their clients are not able to access the conventional shares of Vanguard mutual funds,” a spokeswoman for Vanguard said Thursday. However, she noted that Vanguard’s ETFs are still available and provide the same kind of low-cost, broadly diversified option for investors.
Even with ETFs still available, Morgan Stanley could be taking a big risk—because Vanguard is one of the few mutual fund companies that investors can’t get enough of. Last year, Vanguard’s mutual funds took in more money than the rest of the fund industry combined, according to Morningstar’s calculations.

Getting rich is largely about luck – shame the wealthy don’t want to hear it - Independent

Getting rich is largely about luck – shame the wealthy don’t want to hear it
A new report confirms how the rich become deluded about their talents, but also hints at a growing acknowledgement of inequality
The UK suffers from the highest levels of income inequality in Europe – partly because of the delusions of its rich. In countries where the rich have less, they tend to be less delusional, about themselves, about other people, about what is possible, and about why some become rich.
In the UK, it is unsurprising to read that an investment banker thinks £100m is a lot of money but “not a ridiculous amount of money”. In a report in The Guardian this week, we also heard that one particular banker is “fairly confident” that a driven and passionate individual could “start from zero and get to £100m within 20 years”.
However, there is hope. In the research report that kicked off this latest set of news stories, Katharina Hecht from the London School of Economics and Political Science found that one third of her sample of extremely rich people working in the City of London agreed that “the government should reduce income differences”. The sample is extremely small and this subset of the very rich has not been asked similar questions before, but what they say chimes with reports from the US last year, which implied attitudes among the extremely wealthy are beginning to change.
In 2016 in New York, 50 millionaires wrote to the state’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, asking him to increase their taxes because they thought economic inequalities had grown too high. The group included Abigail Disney, granddaughter of Walt Disney, and Steven Rockefeller, a fourth-generation member of that very wealthy family. The offspring of the rich at least know they did not bring in their riches, let alone create them out of thin air.
In truth, no one creates wealth out of the ether as the mythic phrase “wealth creator” suggests. Most wealth is appropriated from others, not made. Wealth can grow but only when it is well shared, not corralled into the hands of a few. Wealth growth rates are highest in countries that are more equitable than their neighbours.
Four years after the great financial crash, Michael Lewis, one of the most successful people ever to write about the financial industry tried to explain to a group of Princeton University graduates why most of his own and his audience’s success would be down to luck. The author of The Big Short and Moneyball told them that the odds would just be tipped a little in their favour if they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth:
People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck – especially successful people. As they age, and succeed, people feel their success was somehow inevitable. They don’t want to acknowledge the role played by accident in their lives. There is a reason for this: the world does not want to acknowledge it either.
The world Lewis was talking about was not the whole world, but the world as seen by the elites in unequal counties. By “world” he really meant “America”, and in particular he was talking about the “American Dream” – the idea that anyone can make it if they try hard enough and are talented enough, no matter how economically unequal the society is they are competing in.
The American dream is a myth, just like the London investment banker’s fantasy. Those who make money are often not very talented at all. They were just lucky at the right points in their lives. They might have worked hard and often are driven and greedy, but thousands of others will have worked as hard as them, been just as greedy as them, and not consistently struck it lucky. Most often, those who make money had money given to them in the first place, through inheritance that increased their chances; but it is always down to luck. Don’t believe the myth of the nice, kind, gifted, self-made entrepreneur.
We live in a world in which those who have got to the top have got there not out of great merit, but because they often had a few unfair advantages to start with, such as being born male, white and rich, because they had many lucky breaks on the way up, and often because they were willing to stamp on others’ chances as they rose. The human world does not consist of just a few superior beings able enough to do the key things that need doing, and a lumpen mass of inferior beings who could never do these things and so should be penalised appropriately.

Danny Dorling is a Halford Mackinder professor of geography, University of Oxford. This article first appeared on The Conversation (theconversation.com)