Friday, June 20, 2014

Snowden Leaks Have Hurt American Companies, Tech Executive Says - TIME

http://time.com/2849760/edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-symantec/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29\\

June 9, 2014
    

“Every time a new Snowden revelation trickles out, it’s another chip away at U.S. business,” said Cheri McGuire, vice president of Symantec Corp


The revelations of mass surveillance activities by the National Security Agency has made it harder for American companies to conduct business overseas, a tech executive said Monday.
Cheri F. McGuire, a Symantec Corporation vice president, made the comments during a panel discussion marking one year since disclosures from former NSA contractor turned leaker Edward Snowden first rocked the global debate about surveillance and personal privacy. The fight to regain secrecy and privacy since then has plagued many American software companies, including Symantec, McGuire said.
“Every time a new Snowden revelation trickles out, it’s another chip away at U.S. business,” McGuire said during the panel hosted by the Atlantic Council and held at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security in Washington, D.C.
Almost every day, McGuire said, the company faces questions about backdoors within its products that might be available to intelligence agencies, along with requests for specific contractual guarantees of privacy. Companies now face a new environment, McGuire said, one that is filled with “sticky contractual and corporate citizenship issues that were not there before.”
But people in both the U.S. and elsewhere are holding American companies to a higher standard than those in the rest of the world, McGuire said, noting the lack of intelligence oversight around the world. McGuire said the leaks have actually harmed cybersecurity by making companies less willing to share information with other companies and technological innovators.

“We need to get through—I hate to say it—this hyperbole we hear today of privacy outweighing everything else,” McGuire said. “A balance needs to be struck because the situation would be much worse if there was no security equation.”

The Government Wants to Regulate How You Use Google Maps - TIME

http://time.com/2883558/google-maps-regulation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 16, 2014
    

In your car at least


The U.S. Department of Transportation is taking aim at the way drivers use navigation tools such as Google Maps. A proposed bill would grant the National Highway Safety Administration the right to issue guidelines on the functionality of navigation apps that could potentially be a threat to driver safety and force changes to apps that don’t comply with the guidelines, the New York Times reports.
The Department of Transportation has been grappling with the increased use of technology in the car for the last several years. In 2013 the agency issued guidelines on the use of in-car navigation systems, advising that no task on the devices should require more than a two-second glance and 12 seconds total to accomplish. The newly proposed bill, though, would also apply to smartphone apps, like the popular maps software Google and Apple develop. Such apps currently reside in a murky area when it comes to laws that ban calling and texting while driving. A California man faced a $165 fine for using his phone as a navigation aid because other uses of a phone, such as talking while driving, are banned in the state. An appeals court later overturned the decision, according to the Times.

Critics of the proposed measure say it would be impractical for the government to monitor the vast number of navigation apps and whether people are using them while driving or not. But with injuries from car accidents involving a distracted driver on the rise, it’s likely the National Highway Safety Administration will continue to seek ways to regulate the ways people use electronics while behind the wheel. The bill, a wide-ranging piece of legislation regarding transportation, is expected to pass in Congress in some form by the end of the year.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Carbon Rules Show Bad Arithmetic - TIME

http://time.com/2899506/obama-carbon-regulations/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    

Why the numbers in the President's Clean Power Plan don't add up


President Obama’s Clean Power Plan–his Administration’s historic proposal to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, hyped by supporters and detractors alike as a revolution in climate-change action–just doesn’t add up.

I say this with some hesitation, even some embarrassment. During Obama’s first term, while environmentalists kept complaining that he wasn’t talking enough about global warming, I kept writing that he was doing more about global warming than anyone who ever lived. His stimulus bill was launching a clean-energy boom, his fuel-efficiency rules were ratcheting down greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks, and his new regulations on soot, mercury and other stuff coming out of power plants were accelerating a shift away from carbon. Coal produces three-fourths of our emissions from electricity, though it generates just over a third of our electricity, and I recently predicted that Obama’s carbon rules would take his well-justified (though often denied) war on coal to the next level.


But while the enviros who spent years trashing Obama’s “climate silence” are now hailing his Clean Power Plan as his crowning climate legacy, I’m underwhelmed. The EPA says that by 2030, it will reduce emissions from power plants 30% from their 2005 levels, but that’s just a forecast–and U.S. power plants are already nearly halfway to that goal. Some of the other forecasts in the 645-page draft are even less ambitious. For example, coal-generated electricity is also expected to drop about 30% from 2005 levels by 2030; it’s already down 20%, and another 10% of the coal fleet is already scheduled for retirement. The plan predicts an absurdly low 21 gigawatts of new renewable-power capacity by 2030, about as much as the U.S. has added in the past two years.

In general, the forecasts in the plan would, if anything, undershoot the current pace of decarbonization in electricity. And to the extent that they do have teeth, they won’t bite anytime soon. States will have until 2018 to submit compliance plans and until 2030 to complete them. So if climate hawks don’t win the next several presidential elections, the rules probably won’t matter much.

I discussed my doubts with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, a certified climate hawk, who offered several explanations for her plan’s apparent squishiness. The goal, she suggested, was to fashion a plan that could withstand legal and political challenges and to require “what’s doable, reasonable and practical,” not what’s ideal. The EPA was sensitive to the degree of difficulty: the emission cuts required for coal-heavy Kentucky, West Virginia and Wyoming will be less than 20%. The plan also gives states the flexibility to meet their targets by reducing electricity demand, extending the life of zero-carbon nuclear plants and even improving efficiency at coal plants as well as switching to natural gas and renewables. And overall, despite predictably apocalyptic rhetoric from coal interests, opposition has been surprisingly muted.

“I don’t want to scare any state away. I don’t want to spend years negotiating about what’s achievable,” McCarthy told me. “I want to get this off the ground.”
This helps explain the green movement’s enthusiasm. Enacting carbon rules, any carbon rules, will send a powerful signal to the market about dirty power, especially as the Administration cracks down on coal ash, ozone and other pollutants. It will add uncertainty to the electricity industry’s investment decisions, making utilities increasingly reluctant to pour billions of dollars into the pollution controls required to keep their coal plants online. And it will encourage the rest of the world to follow the U.S.’s lead in international climate negotiations. “This will set expectations, and things will just take off,” McCarthy said.

My question was: If this plan is so disruptive, why does it predict that in 2030, we’ll still get over 30% of our power from coal? Why does it suggest that wind-rich Iowa could get even less of its power from renewables than it does today? McCarthy’s answer was, in effect: It’s wrong. I offered to bet her that the U.S. would add more than 21 gigawatts of renewables by 2030; she said she’d take the over too. “Our model might predict one thing, but my understanding of the world tells me something else,” she said. “These numbers represent the minimum. I think we’ll end up with a much more aggressive impact.”


If we’re still getting over 30% of our power from coal in 2030, the EPA’s plan will be a huge disappointment. It will represent defeat in the Obama Administration’s crucial (though undeclared) war on coal. So it’s encouraging that the plan’s architect doesn’t seem to think it adds up either.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

4 Countries That Get Every Last Drop of Natural Gas From Russia - TIME

http://time.com/2882185/russia-natural-gas/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 16, 2014
    
A section of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline - Russia's main natural gas export pipeline, on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2014.Vincent Mundy—Bloomberg via Getty Images

For some countries, the idea of energy independence from Russia is really just a pipe dream

Russia cut off gas shipments to Ukraine Monday, offering a blunt display of its power to squeeze gas flows to Europe—or in the case of a few vulnerable nations, run them dry.
A graph by the Economistarranges European nations in descending order of dependence on Russian gas, four of which stand on the extreme end of vulnerability. Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Latvia drew 100% of their gas supplies from Russia in 2012. Not one drop of energy independence came from alternative suppliers.
The Economist
These are not the sole measure of dependence. All of these countries maintain reserves in anticipation of supply shocks, politically motivated or otherwise. Even Ukraine announced in the wake of Monday’s cut that it had enough reserves to fuel the nation through December. The graph does show however that for a few European nations, the goal of energy independence from Russia remains, at best, a pipe dream.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

The Neurochemistry of Positive Conversations - Harvard Business Review

June 17, 2014 at 1:50pm
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/the-neurochemistry-of-positive-conversations/

by Judith E. Glaser and Richard D. Glaser  |   11:00 AM June 12, 2014

Why do negative comments and conversations stick with us so much longer than positive ones?

A critique from a boss, a disagreement with a colleague, a fight with a friend – the sting from any of these can make you forget a month’s worth of praise or accord. If you’ve been called lazy, careless, or a disappointment, you’re likely to remember and internalize it. It’s somehow easier to forget, or discount, all the times people have said you’re talented or conscientious or that you make them proud.
Chemistry plays a big role in this phenomenon. When we face criticism, rejection or fear, when we feel marginalized or minimized, our bodies produce higher levels of cortisol, a hormone that shuts down the thinking center of our brains and activates conflict aversion and protection behaviors. We become more reactive and sensitive. We often perceive even greater judgment and negativity than actually exists. And these effects can last for 26 hours or more, imprinting the interaction on our memories and magnifying the impact it has on our future behavior. Cortisol functions like a sustained-release tablet – the more we ruminate about our fear, the longer the impact.
Positive comments and conversations produce a chemical reaction too. They spur the production of oxytocin, a feel-good hormone that elevates our ability to communicate, collaborate and trust others by activating networks in our prefrontal cortex. But oxytocin metabolizes more quickly than cortisol, so its effects are less dramatic and long-lasting.

This “chemistry of conversations” is why it’s so critical for all of us –especially managers – to be more mindful about our interactions. Behaviors that increase cortisol levels reduce what I call “Conversational Intelligence” or “C-IQ,” or a person’s ability to connect and think innovatively, empathetically, creatively and strategically with others. Behaviors that spark oxytocin, by contrast, raise C-IQ.
Over the past 30 years, I’ve helped leaders at companies including Boehringer Ingelheim, Clairol, Donna Karen, Exide Technologies, Burberry, and Coach learn to boost performance with better C-IQ. Recently, my consultancy, The CreatingWE Institute, also partnered with Ryan Smith, CEO ofQualtrics, the world’s largest online survey software company, to analyze the frequency of negative (cortisol-producing) versus positive (oxytocin-producing) interactions in today’s workplaces. We asked managers how often they engaged in several behaviors — some positive, and others negative — on a scale of 0 through 5, in which 0 was “never” and 5 was “always.”

The good news is that managers appear to be using positive, oxytocin and C-IQ elevating behaviors more often than negative behaviors. Survey respondents said that they exhibited all five positive behaviors, such as “showing concern for others” more frequently than all five negative ones, such as “pretending to be listening.” However, most respondents – approximately 85% — also admitted to “sometimes” acting in ways that could derail not only specific interactions but also future relationships. And, unfortunately, when leaders exhibit both types of behaviors it creates dissonance or uncertainty in followers’ brains, spurring cortisol production and reducing CI-Q.
Consider Rob, a senior executive from Verizon. He thought of himself as a “best practices” leader who told people what to do, set clear goals, and challenged his team to produce high quality results. But when one of his direct reports had a minor heart attack, and three others asked HR to move to be transferred off his team, he realized there was a problem.

Observing Rob’s conversational patterns for a few weeks, I saw clearly that the negative (cortisol-producing) behaviors easily outweighed the positive (oxytocin-producing) behaviors. Instead of asking questions to stimulate discussion, showing concern for others, and painting a compelling picture of shared success, his tendency was to tell and sell his ideas, entering most discussions with a fixed opinion, determined to convince others he was right. He was not open to others’ influence; he failed to listen to connect.
When I explained this to Rob, and told him about the chemical impact his behavior was having on his employees, he vowed to change, and it worked. A few weeks later, a member of his team even asked me: “What did you give my boss to drink?”
I’m not suggesting that you can’t ever demand results or deliver difficult feedback. But it’s important to do so in a way that is perceived as inclusive and supportive, thereby limiting cortisol production and hopefully stimulating oxytocin instead. Be mindful of the behaviors that open us up, and those that close us down, in our relationships. Harness the chemistry of conversations.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Starbucks to Provide Free College Education to Thousands of Workers - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/starbucks-to-provide-free-college-education-to-thousands-of-workers.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_STP_20140616&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=2

CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

Starbucks will provide a free online college education to thousands of its workers, without requiring that they remain with the company, through an unusual arrangement with Arizona State University, the company and the university will announce on Monday.
The program is open to any of the company’s 135,000 United States employees, provided they work at least 20 hours a week and have the grades and test scores to gain admission to Arizona State. For a barista with at least two years of college credit, the company will pay full tuition; for those with fewer credits it will pay part of the cost, but even for many of them, courses will be free, with government and university aid.
“Starbucks is going where no other major corporation has gone,” said Jamie P. Merisotis, president and chief executive of the Lumina Foundation, a group focused on education. “For many of these Starbucks employees, an online university education is the only reasonable way they’re going to get a bachelor’s degree.”
Many employers offer tuition reimbursement. But those programs usually come with limitations like the full cost not being paid, new employees being excluded, requiring that workers stay for years afterward, or limiting reimbursement to work-related courses.
Starbucks is, in effect, inviting its workers, from the day they join the company, to study whatever they like, and then leave whenever they like — knowing that many of them, degrees in hand, will leave for better-paying jobs.
Even if they did, their experience “would be accreted to our brand, our reputation and our business,” Howard D. Schultz, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said in an interview. “I believe it will lower attrition, it’ll increase performance, it’ll attract and retain better people.”
In a low-wage service industry, Starbucks has for decades been unusual, doing things such as providing health insurance, even for part-timers, and giving its employees stock options. (Like other food and drink chains, it has also been accused of using improper tactics in fighting unionization drives.) Whether in spite of those perks or because of them, the company has been highly successful; its stock, which closed Friday at $74.69, has grown in value more than a hundredfold since it went public in 1992.
The president of Arizona State, Michael M. Crow, something of an evangelist for online education, was scheduled to join Mr. Schultz and Arne Duncan, the education secretary, to announce the program on Monday in Manhattan. Arizona State has one of the largest online degree programs in the United States, with 11,000 students and 40 undergraduate majors, and one of the most highly regarded.
The university and the company say they do not know how many Starbucks employees will take advantage of the program, which includes help with paperwork and academic advising, but they expect thousands to enroll, and Mr. Crow said Arizona State has prepared for a major surge in enrollment. Tuition for Arizona State’s online undergraduate courses is usually about $500 per credit, and it takes 120 credits to earn a bachelor’s degree.

The Starbucks program sounds like a boon to Abraham G. Cervantes, 24, who lives in the San Pedro section of Los Angeles with his mother and two of his brothers, and would be the first in his family to earn a college degree. “I’m the only one in the family with a steady job,” he said. In fact, he has two jobs — one at Starbucks, and another at a music studio.
While studying at a community college, he discovered classical music, and fell in love with Chopin, Bach and Beethoven, though at home he can practice only on a worn-out piano. He said he dreamed of being a professor of music, but after five years of trying to mesh his class and work schedules, he has not finished his associate’s degree.
“Working two jobs, you don’t always have time to attend school,” he said.
The new Starbucks program “would be a huge benefit to me,” Mr. Cervantes said, giving him flexibility and eliminating the commute to and from school.
The company says that in its employee surveys some of the most compelling results are about higher education. Seventy percent of Starbucks employees do not have a degree but want to earn one; some have never gone to college, some have gone but dropped out, and others are in school, but have found it slow going.
“My dad lost his job during the recession, in my first year of college, and my parents were really struggling for money,” said Tammie R. Lopez, 22, who would also be the first in her family to finish college. “They were on the verge of losing their home, so I stopped going to school so I could get a second job and help them.”
Ms. Lopez, who lives in the San Fernando Valley, got a full-time job at Starbucks and goes to a community college at night.


“I could never see myself finishing school because it’s taken me so long to get where I am,” Ms. Lopez said. She is studying to be a sign language interpreter, but is also weighing other possibilities, such as a business degree. What Starbucks has planned, she said, completely changed her outlook.
“I could be done with school in a couple of years — I can see it, that financial burden would be lifted,” she said. “Even if I had an emergency and I had to go out of town, I would be able to take my computer with me and not miss class.”
Mr. Schultz, the Starbucks chief, said such stories strike a personal chord with him. He grew up in public housing in Brooklyn and an athletic scholarship enabled him to be the first in his family to attend college, at Northern Michigan University.
He and Mr. Crow said they met a few years ago when Mr. Schultz spoke at Arizona State, and got to know each other while working with the Markle Foundation, a charitable public policy organization. They found they shared modest backgrounds and concerns about growing inequality.
“The middle class is being hollowed out in so many ways,” Mr. Crow said. Unless more people become educated, he said, “We can all see this social train wreck ahead of us.”
It is a wreck that Michael Bojorquez Echevarria, 23, another Starbucks barista in the San Fernando Valley, can see clearly, and is struggling to avoid. He grew up in the Bay Area, the child of immigrants from Mexico, and saw the limitations that a lack of education had placed on them, he said, adding that he has always believed that “I have to be one of those people who can say we made it.”

“My ultimate vision, what I’m striving for, is to work with children who have gone through physical or emotional abuse,” he said.
For now, he is working toward an associate’s degree in sociology. He works about 60 hours a week at two different Starbucks locations, where he said the regular customers asked about his studies and egged him on.

“Imagine just waking up one day and knowing that your whole degree would be paid for, and the only thing you have to do is enroll and study and be a good student,” he said. “It would change my lifestyle, the whole dynamic of what I do every day.”

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Millennial Women Are Still Getting Paid Less Than Men - TIME

http://time.com/2870940/millennial-women-are-still-getting-paid-less-than-men/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 13, 2014
    

And millennial men are totally smug about it


Naive millennials thought that the pay gap was only for mid-level executives, but new research shows that even the youngest generation of women are more financially vulnerable in the workplace. Despite an earlier Pew report that showed women gaining parity with men, new research from Wells Fargo shows that college-educated millennial men made $20,000 more per year than women with the same education level. The median annual income for millennial men was $83,000, while women made only $63,000.

The Wells Fargo data didn’t mention anything about a breakdown by occupation, but other research from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research shows that even in occupations that are dominated by women, men still tend to earn more. But the most recent findings also contradict the notion that the pay gap can be attributed to women slowing down at work because they’re on the mommy track– this data shows that women are making less than men far before they start to think about having families. This goes with other research that finds that the pay gap starts with the first job a student gets out of college which can put them behind for their whole career.
Some attribute the wage gap to women’s failure to negotiate, but recent studies have shown that no matter how a woman negotiates her salary, it can often have negative consequences. As Maria Konnikova wrote recently in the New Yorker:
The effect held whether they saw the negotiation on video or read about it on paper, whether they viewed it from a disinterested third-party perspective or imagined themselves as senior managers in a corporation evaluating an internal candidate. Evenwomen penalized the women who initiated the conversation, though they also penalized the men who did so. They just didn’t seem to like seeing someone ask for more money.

There’s also a disparity between men and women when it comes to savings. Of the 55% of millennials who say they’re saving for retirement, 61% are men and only 50% are women. And 58% of men feel “satisfied” with their savings, while only 41% of women do. And millennial women are far less confident about their financial futures, since only 62% say they’ll be able to afford the lifestyle they want in the future. 80% of men say they’re confident they’ll be able to live the life they want.
Millennial women get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to debt too. 45% of millennial women said they felt “overwhelmed” by their debt, while only 33% of men felt that way. One in five millennial women is “worried” about making ends meet, while only one in ten men is.

Moral of the story: millennial dudes are not only making more and saving more, they’re utterly confident about it.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

The Credit Card Bomb Just Waiting to Go Off - TIME

http://time.com/2854661/credit-card-bomb/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 11, 2014
    
Last quarter, Americans collectively paid down $32.5 billion worth of credit card debt—but don’t pat yourself on the back just yet: That’s actually way less than we paid down at the end of the recession five years ago, and we’re on track to end this year with almost $42 billionmore credit card debt than last year, which one credit expert warns could backfire big time.

CardHub.com‘s new quarterly credit card debt study shows a worrying return to pre-recession carelessness about debt, says Odysseas Papadimitriou, the site’s CEO. “Unfortunately, we’re a little bit worse than we were last year and significantly worse than we were in 2009 and 2010,” he says.
Americans historically pay off the most debt in the first quarter of each year, as we pay down our holiday spending and take advantage of early tax refunds to chip away at those debts — an average of $6,628 per household, according to CardHub. But in the years following the recession, we’ve been paying down less and less. This year, we paid down 28% less debt than we did in the first quarter of 2009.
In the period during and immediately after the recession, we were essentially scared straight and dumped our debt as fast as possible. We appear to have gotten over our fear, and that’s not necessarily a great thing, Papadimitriou says.
Right now, the default rate is around 3.3%, not bad by historical standards, but Papadimitriou points out that it’s coming off years of higher rates — during the last two quarters of 2009, it shot up above 10%. There’s less delinquent debt to go into default, following a period when credit card companies dumped those customers, charged off the losses and sold them to collection agencies for pennies on the dollar.
But that’s starting to change, as card issuers begin loosening credit restrictions and lending to people with blemished credit once again. We’re borrowing more as banks loosen the purse strings — CardHub predicts we’ll end this year with 8% more total credit card debt than last year, 14% more than just two years ago.
It’s not just credit card debt, either. Data earlier this year from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that overall consumer debt stands at a whopping $11.52 trillion, the highest it’s been since 2011, although it’s still below pre-recession figures. (Student loan debt — which can’t be discharged in bankruptcy the way credit card debt can — is a big culprit.)
This kind of trajectory puts us on a worrying cycle of accumulating more debt, year over year, which means any kind of financial hiccup — job loss, medical bills, illness — that hits makes us extremely vulnerable to falling behind on our debts. Papadimitriou urges Americans to build up an emergency fund so if the unexpected does happen, they won’t fall behind on their debts and be stuck paying penalty interest rates when they can least afford it.

“It seems like we need to get reminded on a constant basis of the risks of this behavior,” he says.

Friday, June 13, 2014

How to Opt Out of Facebook’s New Ad-Targeting Program - TIME

http://time.com/2864482/facebook-ads-opt-out/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 12, 2014
    

Don't want Facebook to use your browsing history for ads? Here's how to opt out

Facebook has long used “like” buttons and comment boxes on other websites to track vital data about its users as they move about the broader Internet. Now, however, Facebook will start leveraging that browsing data to serve up targeted advertising to users in the U.S., the company said Thursday.
If the idea of Facebook ads gleaned from your entire web history creeps you out, Facebook is offering a way to opt out of the program — You can visit this website built by the Digital Advertising Alliance to tell Facebook and other companies that you don’t want to receive specially targeted ads.
This won’t stop Facebook from showing you ads, but it will prevent the ads from being served up based on your web activity. It also won’t stop Facebook from collecting info about your browsing habits for other purposes. The social network ties such data to individual members’ profiles, keeping it for up to 90 days.

People can opt out of targeted ads from Google, Yahoo and other large websites using the same service. These settings must be enabled on each individual browser a person uses.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

EU to investigate Apple's tax affairs - BBC NEWS

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27788238

The European Commission is to open a formal investigation into Apple, Starbucks and Fiat in relation to tax arrangements with three EU countries.
The firms' respective arrangements with Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg will be investigated.
Announcing the move, tax commissioner Algirdas Semeta said that "fair tax competition is essential".
Last year, a US Senate investigation accused Ireland of giving special tax treatment to Apple.
The European Commission will look at whether the companies' tax affairs breach EU rules on state aid.
Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said: "In the current context of tight public budgets, it is particularly important that large multinationals pay their fair share of taxes."
Countries in Europe cannot allow certain firms to pay less tax than they should, Mr Almunia added.
Sanctions
The investigations will focus on "transfer pricing", or whether the countries allowed the multinational firms to charge one part of the company over the odds for goods or services from another part of the company as a way of shifting profits.
Under Commission rules, companies must charge their subsidiaries market rates.
Sanctions for a breach of tax rules could include an attempt to claw money back from Apple, Starbucks and Fiat.
Apple said that it had not had "any special tax deal with the Irish government".
"We have received no selective treatment from Irish officials," the company said. "Apple is subject to the same tax laws as scores of other international companies doing business in Ireland."
The Irish finance ministry said Apple "did not receive selective treatment and there was no 'special tax rate deal'".
"Ireland is confident that there is no state aid rule breach in this case and we will defend all aspects vigorously," the Department of Finance said.
Last year's US Senate committee investigation revealed that Apple had been able to funnel profits into Irish subsidiaries or "ghost companies" that had no declared tax residency anywhere in the world, cutting billions from its tax bill.
The Senate committee hearing revealed that Apple designated its Irish entities as unlimited companies, which meant it did not have to publish annual accounts.
The Irish arrangement allowed Apple to pay just 1.9% tax on its $37bn in overseas profits in 2012, despite the fact the average tax rate in the OECD countries that make up its main markets was 24% last year.
In a 40-page memorandum, the Senate committee said: "Ireland has essentially functioned as a tax haven for Apple."
Starbucks' tax row
Coffee giant Starbucks has been embroiled in a tax controversy for a number of years.
In 2012, the multinational admitted that it had a special tax deal with the Dutch government which allowed it to transfer money to its Dutch sister company in royalty payments.
Starbucks said on Wednesday that its Dutch tax arrangements conformed with financial law.
"We comply with all relevant tax rules, laws and OECD guidelines and we're studying the Commission's announcement related to the state aid investigation in the Netherlands," a Starbucks spokesperson said.
The Dutch finance ministry said it was confident that its tax system was "robust".
"We are confident that the investigation by the EC will in the end result in the conclusion there is no state aid involved," a spokesman told the BBC.
Fiat 'compliant in Luxembourg'
The European Commission is also investigating the tax arrangements of Fiat's financial firm, Fiat Finance and Trade.
Fiat said that while its financial arm is headquartered in Luxembourg, the investigation is into the government concerned.
"We are compliant with all Luxembourg regulations," the company added.
Luxembourg has already riled the European Commission over the firm.
The Commission said on Wednesday that it was launching infringement proceedings against Luxembourg for giving only partial answers to requests for information about Fiat Finance and Trade tax rulings.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

China’s Real Estate Downturn Spells Trouble for Global Economy - TIME

http://time.com/2851514/chinas-real-estate-downturn-spells-trouble-for-global-economy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 10, 2014
    
A sales assistant talks to visitors in front of models of apartments at a real estate exhibition in Shenyang, Liaoning province April 17, 2014.Sheng Li—Reuters

The world's largest trading nation's economic growth remains heavily dependent on property, meaning a sharp downturn in that sector would be felt across Asia and beyond


“Will the government save the market if housing prices fall?” That was the question being asked in China this week — not by stressed-out mortgage holders, but by the country’s most famous (and wealthy) property mogul, Pan Shiyi.
Pan, the chairman of giant real estate developer SOHO China, has made a series of pronouncements in recent weeks that reflect an increasingly bearish long-term outlook for China’s property sector.
At an industry forum in late May, Pan compared the nation’s real estate prospects to the Titanic. “It [the real estate industry] will soon hit the iceberg in front of it,” he declared.

Pan’s outlook may be bleak, but is borne out by statistics. According to Standard & Poor’s, residential housing prices in China will drop by 5% this year — a dramatic reversal from last year’s rise of 11.5%.

That’s bad news for China’s property holders, but potentially also a worrying sign for global investors. With Chinese economic growth heavily dependent on the real estate sector, which accounts for 20% of GDP by some estimates, a sharp slowdown in the property market would be felt far beyond China’s borders. (China is, after all, the world’s largest trading nation.)

After more than a decade of sizzling double-digit growth, the government is targeting 7% growth this year. But the potential for a real estate correction means that the actual number could be much lower.

There are already some signs that imports are being affected as consumer confidence weakens. The General Administration of Customs announced Sunday that imports in May declined 1.6% year on year — a drop that surprised industry analysts. That compared to an increase of 0.9% year on year in April.

With prices trending sharply downward, the president of the country’s largest residential real estate developer, Vanke, has declared that the “golden age” for property is over. “The period when everyone made money from property is gone,” Yu Liang was quoted as saying recently.

A conflagration of factors is driving the decrease in prices, not least repressive market policies that restrict the number of properties city dwellers can own. Markets in larger cities are also being flooded with knockdown properties being dumped by overextended investors or government officials looking to rid themselves of any undeclared assets in light of a recent and severe government crackdown on corruption.

Chinese media reported Monday that one coal-mining magnate was attempting to offload 100 apartments in a coveted location along Beijing’s Second Ring Road.


Little wonder, then, that the property mogul Pan is on the lookout for the visible hand of the government. But, for now at least, state intervention seems unlikely. In a report late last month, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development declared that it would stay on the sidelines and “respect the adjustment role of the laws of the market in the real estate sector.”

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Underpaying Employees Can Hurt a Company’s Bottom Line - TIME

http://time.com/2828130/minimum-wage-hike-job-loss/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

June 6, 2014
    
Fast-food workers and supporters organized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) protest outside of a Burger King Worldwide Inc. restaurant in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013.Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images

There's little evidence to indicate that raising wages will lead to job losses, and studies show that high-wage companies fare better than lower-wage ones.


Just this week, Seattle workers won a significant battle when the city raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour. Richmond, Calif, recently voted to hike theirs to $13 by 2018, while polls indicate San Francisco voters favor a $15minimum. Even the CEO of McDonalds is somewhere between neutral and positive on raising the minimum wage.

People continue to argue that increasing the price of labor will reduce the number of jobs. However, the oft-cited study in the fast-food industry by economists David Card and Alan Krueger show small to no negative employment effects. And a comprehensive study of minimum wages in European countries concludes that there is “no general evidence that minimum wages reduced employment.” But even if higher minimum wages do cost jobs, should U.S. policymakers care? Maybe not.
Contrary to what you may think, the U.S. is actually a comparatively low-wage country. According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2013 the U.S. ranked23rd out of 28 industrialized countries in terms of hourly earnings. These data suggest that the U.S. can easily afford to pay more and not jeopardize its competitive standing.
Moreover–and this is important–there is essentially no relationship between average hourly earnings and that country’s competitiveness as measured, for instance, by balance of trade statistics. In 2012, countries with high wages—such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, to take a few examples—ran a large balance of trade surpluses, while low-wage countries such as Portugal, Iceland and the U.S. ran a balance of trade deficits.

Nor, for that matter, do high-wage companies invariably suffer, as University of Colorado Denver management professor Wayne Cascio’s comparison of higher-wage (and benefits) Costco with lower-wage (and benefits) Sam’s Club so nicely illustrated. The issue is not what people cost, but what they can do, their innovativeness, and their productivity. Poorly paid people are more likely to quit, and turnover is costly. Underpaid people are unlikely to be engaged with their work or to exert discretionary effort. There is simply little reason to believe that raising wage rates will unduly harm country or company competitiveness.

But most fundamentally, policymakers need to ask what sort of economy they want to create: a) an economy with low-wage jobs—and maybe one with few environmental or safety protections as well—such as Bangladesh, or b) an economy with high-wage employment and working conditions that do not sicken and kill people—think Denmark or Singapore.

Some years ago I had the privilege of working with the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore. Although Singapore has no national minimum wage, the government has consistently pursued policies to raise not just the education and training levels of the workforce, but also income. Early in Singapore’s history, it was a hub for low-cost manufacturing. When low-wage manufacturers complained they would be forced to move their operations out of Singapore as wage levels rose, the government’s response was: learn to be more efficient and productive, or go. Why would the government want to encourage the preservation of low-wage work—a policy that would also retard the growth in national median income?

Missing from the minimum wage discussion are the effects of wages and other job conditions on people’s physical, psychological and economic well being. And what about the “social pollution” caused by companies who pay people so little that their food and health care must then be subsidized by the public? Many advanced industrialized economies have chosen a “high road” policy path that has produced higher incomes and, not coincidentally, much better health outcomessuch as longer life expectancy and lower rates of infant mortality. Economics teaches us that trade-offs are inevitable. Trading off job quality for job quantity might be a poor choice.

Jeffrey Pfeffer is Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Monday, June 9, 2014

These Are America’s 7 Most Profitable Products - TIME

June 7, 2014 at 2:07am
http://time.com/2837247/most-profitableproducts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    

This post is in partnership with 24/7Wall Street. The article below was originally published on 247wallst.com.
Successful companies frequently depend on just one product for a large share of their sales. That’s true for some of the most iconic brands, including Coca-Cola, Marlboro, Jack Daniels, and Apple. In many cases, these products not only represent an outsized share of their company’s revenue, but they also have tremendous profit margins that serve as the foundation of the company’s profitability.
Nearly all the most profitable products are market leaders in their industry and are mass produced in incredible quantities. As a result, the company can apply significant pressure on suppliers to lower costs, while still selling to customers at the highest possible price.

For instance, Apple sold more than 150 million iPhones in its latest full fiscal year, up 20% from the year before, when the company sold 125 million iPhones. Very few smartphone or consumer electronics devices can match that volume, which gives Apple notable leverage in negotiations for components and with carriers. Today, most Americans own a smartphone, and a huge number of these are iPhones.
The most profitable products tend to rely on the power of their brand, which can command a premium price and sell extraordinary numbers of units. In fact, some of these products, including Coca-Cola, Harley-Davidson and Jack Daniels, are also among the world’s most valuable brands, according to brand consultancy group Interbrand.
One major factor that helps to shape product profitability is exceptional management. On one hand, businesses that spend too much on areas such as research and development or marketing can cut deeply into a product’s margins. Of course, controlling expenses is a balancing act. A product that is not well-built or marketed is one that will fizzle away.
Clearly, the ability to develop or market a product well can be a huge source of popularity as well. Apple’s iPhone is hugely popular because it is, by most accounts, one of the most well-built and user-friendly smartphones made by a consumer electronics company. Coca-Cola and Marlboro likely owe much of their popularity to their world-famous advertising.
Product profitability is among the most difficult financialmeasurements to gauge from the financial information released by public companies. As a result, finding credible and reliable information on a product’s profitability is also quite difficult. Public companies tend to guard data on product profits, and rightly so. This information is equivalent to a trade secret that corporations do not want their competitors to have, even if the figures can be estimated.


Based on data from by Capital IQ, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the S&P 500 companies that produce consumer products. We only considered corporations that have a single product that is considered to be the company’s flagship brand, or represents the largest single contributor to revenue. To account for the opaque nature of product profitability, 24/7 Wall St. only considered products of publicly traded companies that disclosed significant details about their operations. We excluded companies with an operating margin of less than 15%, as well as companies that did not break out revenue by division or product. In order to estimate product operating margin, in the cases when the product’s margin or revenue was not provided, we used the company or division’s operating margin as a proxy. If it was clear that the brand power of the product and high volume of sales allow the company to sell the product at a premium, we awarded the product a higher operating margin. Market share values listed are for the U.S. exclusively, and come from various industry sources. Variations of existing, well-established products, such as the iPhone 5c, Jack Daniels Honey and Diet Coke, were counted as part of the parent brand.

These are America’s most profitable products.
1. iPhone
> Operating margin: 41%
> Product revenue: $91.3 billion
> Market share: 45.0%
> Industry: Computer hardware
A majority of Americans now own smartphones, according to Pew Research Center. Last year, 45% of all smartphones sold were iPhones. The iPhone is one of the world’s most profitable products and a primary driver in Apples’ (NASDAQ: AAPL) financial success. The company’s fiscal 2013 sales increased by $14.4 billion, or 9%, from the year before. Much of the growth was due to strong iPhone 5 sales, as well as the successful introductions of iPhone 5S and lower-cost 5c. Net sales of the iPhone totaled $91.3 billion last year, up 16% from 2012, when sales increased by more than 70% from the year before. Interbrand named Apple the world’s most valuable brand last year.

2. Marlboro
> Operating margin: 32%
> Product revenue: $18.7 billion
> Market share: 40.3%
> Industry: Tobacco
Despite a massive decline in American smoking habits since the 1960s, Marlboro cigarettes are still among America’s most profitable products. Altria Group, Marlboro’s parent company, shipped roughly 130 billion packs of cigarettes last year, including 111 billion packs of Marlboros, down slightly from the year before. The Marlboro brand, however, still dominates U.S. tobacco markets, controlling more than two-fifths of the tobacco market in America. The brand has been the top-selling cigarette nationwide for the past 35 years. While smoking is on the decline, the Marlboro brand can be found on a variety of smokeless tobacco products as well, including snus. Altria Group shipped 787.5 million units of smokeless tobacco products last year, up slightly from 2012.

3. Monster
> Operating margin: 26%
> Product revenue: $2.1 billion
> Market share: 34.6%
> Industry: Soft drinks

Like several other energy drink brands, Monster has come under some scrutiny for its brightly colored labels and flashy advertising, because such tactics tend to attract a young audience. One can of Monster has roughly five times the caffeine found in a can of Coke. Monster does not children or pregnant women consume its products. Despite bad press, Monster Beverage Corporation’s revenue has steadily increased in recent years. Sales rose more than 9% last year.
Free Daily Newsletter  subscribe Terms & Conditions
   

America’s Most Profitable Products

By Thomas C. Frohlich and Alexander E.M. Hess June 6, 2014 6:19 am EDT

7. Harley-Davidson Motorcycles (NYSE: HOG)
> Operating margin: 17%
> Product revenue: $4.1 million
> Market share: 54.9%
> Industry: Motorcycles
The 100-plus year old Harley-Davidson company has built a dedicated community of motorcycle enthusiasts. The approximately 1 million worldwide members Harley Owners Group, which the company introduced in 1983, promotes sales, events, rallies, and bike trips. Perhaps as a result, Harley-Davidson is among the world’s 100 most valuable brands, according to Interbrand’s 2013 report. The distinctive culture associated with Harley-Davidson is widespread beyond the U.S. Last year, China held its fifth annual Harley-Davidson National Rally, drawing thousands of riders. Nearly 168,000, or 55%, of new motorcycles registrations in the U.S. last year were Harley-Davidsons, according to the company. Revenue at the company’s motorcycle and related products segment rose 6.4% last year from $4.9 billion to $5.3 billion. In addition to selling motorcycles, the company also services vehicles and provides financing, which help bring its company-wide operating margin up to nearly 20%.

6. Enfamil
> Operating margin: 24%
> Product revenue: $2.0 billion
> Market share: 40.0%
> Industry: Packaged foods and meats
Enfamil is one of the best-selling infant formula brands in the world. While it trailed Abbott Laboratories’ Similac brand in market share, the company claims to be the number one formula brand recommended by pediatricians. Its stellar brand has clearly helped Mead Johnson stay profitable in every year for the last 10 years. The company reported net sales of $4.2 billion in its most recent fiscal year, with Enfamil sales accounting for a large portion of the sales. Although a declining U.S. birth rate has raised some concerns about growth, the company continues to expand its presence in emerging markets and makes more than half of its revenues in Asia.

5. Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO)
> Operating margin: 24%
> Product revenue: $13.7 billion
> Market share: 42.4%
> Industry: Soft drinks
Coca-Cola’s total revenue dropped 2.4% last year, as consumers’ preferences continued to shift towards less sugary, healthier drinks. Even with these developments, however, Coca-Cola remains the dominant player in the soda market. The 128-year-old company controlled 36% of the U.S. market in 1977, and 42% last year. Coca-Cola distributes more than 500 different beverage brands around the globe. In all, the company and its numerous bottlers sold a total of 28.2 billion unit cases of Coke and other beverages in 2013, up 2% from the year before. As of 2013, Coca-Cola trailed only Google and Apple on Interbrand’s list of the world’s 100 most valuable brands.

4. Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey
> Operating margin: 25%
> Product revenue: $2.0 billion
> Market share: 2.4% (U.S.; largest American whiskey)
> Industry: Alcohol
Jack Daniels is the top-selling American whiskey, and one of the largest spirits brands, in the world. It is also Brown-Forman Corporations’ principal product, and its biggest driver of growth. Although branding for Jack Daniels has often invoked the company’s Southern heritage, the drink is popular worldwide, having benefited from rising whiskey demand overseas. According to Advertising Age, an increasingly large proportion of Jack Daniels revenue comes from international sales due to a recent bourbon boom. Jack Daniels is sold in a number of different variations, including Tennessee Whiskey, Single Barrel, Ready-to-Drinks, Tennessee Honey, and Winter Jack. The company reported net sales of $3.9 billion in fiscal 2014. Jack Daniels’ popularity domestically and abroad is largely the driver behind the company’s continued growth, according to Brown-Forman.


3. Monster
> Operating margin: 26%
> Product revenue: $2.1 billion
> Market share: 34.6%
> Industry: Soft drinks
Like several other energy drink brands, Monster has come under some scrutiny for its brightly colored labels and flashy advertising, because such tactics tend to attract a young audience. One can of Monster has roughly five times the caffeine found in a can of Coke. Monster does not children or pregnant women consume its products. Despite bad press, Monster Beverage Corporation’s revenue has steadily increased in recent years. Sales rose more than 9% last year.

2. Marlboro
> Operating margin: 32%
> Product revenue: $18.7 billion
> Market share: 40.3%
> Industry: Tobacco
Despite a massive decline in American smoking habits since the 1960s, Marlboro cigarettes are still among America’s most profitable products. Altria Group, Marlboro’s parent company, shipped roughly 130 billion packs of cigarettes last year, including 111 billion packs of Marlboros, down slightly from the year before. The Marlboro brand, however, still dominates U.S. tobacco markets, controlling more than two-fifths of the tobacco market in America. The brand has been the top-selling cigarette nationwide for the past 35 years. While smoking is on the decline, the Marlboro brand can be found on a variety of smokeless tobacco products as well, including snus. Altria Group shipped 787.5 million units of smokeless tobacco products last year, up slightly from 2012.

1. iPhone
> Operating margin: 41%
> Product revenue: $91.3 billion
> Market share: 45.0%
> Industry: Computer hardware
A majority of Americans now own smartphones, according to Pew Research Center. Last year, 45% of all smartphones sold were iPhones. The iPhone is one of the world’s most profitable products and a primary driver in Apples’ (NASDAQ: AAPL) financial success. The company’s fiscal 2013 sales increased by $14.4 billion, or 9%, from the year before. Much of the growth was due to strong iPhone 5 sales, as well as the successful introductions of iPhone 5S and lower-cost 5c. Net sales of the iPhone totaled $91.3 billion last year, up 16% from 2012, when sales increased by more than 70% from the year before. Interbrand named Apple the world’s most valuable brand last year.
By Thomas C. Frohlich and Alexander E.M. Hess