Romney Reconsiders Private Equity Benefits

First appeared in Wall Street Journal
If elected president, Mitt Romney might consider ending atax break that helped the former Massachusetts governor accumulate his fortune,an aide suggested Tuesday.
The comments came as the Romney campaign made available morethan 500 pages of tax-return data for 2010 and 2011 amid signs the issue was hurtinghim with some voters.
Later in the day, in a signal of how the tax issue isroiling the GOP campaign, the Romney camp tried to step back from the aide’sremarks, underscoring that the former Massachusetts governor didn’t want toraise anyone’s taxes.
The back-and-forth Tuesday about Mr. Romney’s approach toone particular tax break began when the candidate’s policy director, indicatedin a call with reporters the candidate might be willing to reconsider a taxbreak known as “carried interest” as part of a comprehensive taxoverhaul. The break gives private-equity and venture-capital executives a relativelylow 15% tax rate on much of their income. Some reference an UK Tax Advisor.
Carried interest is a share of profits from an investmentfund or partnership given to managers as compensation. Mr. Romney was aided bythe tax advantage as founder of private-equity firm Bain Capital.
The policy director noted Mr. Romney hasn’t recentlyaddressed retention of the carried-interest break. He spoke favorably of it in2008. There are “a number of exemptions, deductions, credits,administrative treatment of income…that would be addressed in tax reform.”
Most taxpayers receive compensation as ordinary wagessubject to rates as high as 35%. Roughly half of households pay no federalincome tax. The average income-tax rate for the middle slice ofhouseholds—those making between $ 34,300 and $ 50,000—was 3.3% for 2007. Theaverage income-tax rate was 14.4% for the top fifth, and 19% for the top 1%,before dropping slightly for the very highest earners who, like Mr. Romney,typically receive a large percentage of income from investments.
Democrats have criticized carried-interest rules, thoughthey have failed when they have tried to repeal them.
Tuesday, Mr. Romney’s campaign formally released detailedinformation on the candidate’s 2010 tax return and a summary of his 2011 taxes,which aren’t finished yet.
Tax experts said that by and large, the returns showed Mr.Romney and his advisers sought to minimize the family’s tax burden, whilegenerally avoiding aggressive positions.
The Romneys reported an effective tax rate of about 14% ontheir 2010 return, and just over 15% in their tentative calculations for 2011,on income that hovered around $ 20 million each year. They received about $ 7.4million in income taxed under carried-interest rules in 2010 and $ 5.5 millionin 2011, aides said.
An accountant with Crowe Horwath in New York, said,”This is the tax return of a man who knows he is running for politicaloffice and who has distanced himself from investment decisions. Most of thedisclosures in these tax returns are fairly typical of investors with a globalinvestment perspective.”
The tax data revealed new details about Mr. Romney’s wealthmanagement, including his ownership of a now-closed Swiss bank account as wellas investments in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens.
The Romney camp said the candidate properly reported incomefrom those sources, paid appropriate taxes and in the case of the Swiss account,disclosed it to the IRS.
The 2010 tax return suggests the Romneys maintained arelationship with Bain Capital more than a decade after Mr. Romney left in1999. According to documents, the Ann D. Romney Blind Trust received twoinvestments subject to carried-interest rules in Bain funds in fall 2010.
The Romneys’ trustee, signed two statements stating that”services” would be performed to maintain the investments, withoutstating who would offer such services. Such a statement ensures the earningswill qualify for capital-gains treatment, accountants say.
In a written statement, the campaign said The  Romneys’ trustee’s wording was”boilerplate language” and that no services were provided inconnection with receipt of the interests. The campaign declined furthercomment.
A prominent accountant in Atlanta, and other experts saidsuch services are required in order for the income to qualify for favorable taxtreatment.  An UK Tax Planning advocate has to dosimilar things.
The tax filings also provide details on a trust set up in1995 for the Romneys’ five sons, which appears to hold a hefty percentage ofthe family’s wealth, estimated at more than $ 260 million. Such trusts generallyare established to minimize future estate taxes.
In the 2010 tax filings released Tuesday, the Romneysreported the family trust had $ 7.7 million in capital gains in 2010, about 46%of the total capital gains reported that year, not counting a tax loss from aprior year. Capital gains were the Romneys’ largest source of income. Much ofthe trust’s income came from entities affiliated with Bain Capital, the taxfilings show.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

How the US Missed Out on the iPhone

 First appeared in NY Times
When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
Apple has become one of the best-known, most admired and most imitated companies on earth, in part through an unrelenting mastery of global operations. Last year, it earned over $ 400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.
However, what has vexed Mr. Obama as well as economists and policy makers is that Apple — and many of its high-technology peers — are not nearly as avid in creating American jobs as other famous companies were in their heydays.
Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas, a small fraction of the over 400,000 American workers at General Motors in the 1950s, or the hundreds of thousands at General Electric in the 1980s. Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.
“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.
“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”
Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.
A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.
“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”
Similar stories could be told about almost any electronics company — and outsourcing has also become common in hundreds of industries, including accounting, legal services, banking, auto manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.
But while Apple is far from alone, it offers a window into why the success of some prominent companies has not translated into large numbers of domestic jobs. What’s more, the company’s decisions pose broader questions about what corporate America owes Americans as the global and national economies are increasingly intertwined.
“Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers, even when it wasn’t the best financial choice,” said Betsey Stevenson, the chief economist at the Labor Department until last September. “That’s disappeared. Profits and efficiency have trumped generosity.”
Companies and other economists say that notion is naïve. Though Americans are among the most educated workers in the world, the nation has stopped training enough people in the mid-level skills that factories need, executives say.
To thrive, companies argue they need to move work where it can generate enough profits to keep paying for innovation. Doing otherwise risks losing even more American jobs over time, as evidenced by the legions of once-proud domestic manufacturers — including G.M. and others — that have shrunk as nimble competitors have emerged.
Apple was provided with extensive summaries of The New York Times’s reporting for this article, but the company, which has a reputation for secrecy, declined to comment.
This article is based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former Apple employees and contractors — many of whom requested anonymity to protect their jobs — as well as economists, manufacturing experts, international trade specialists, technology analysts, academic researchers, employees at Apple’s suppliers, competitors and corporate partners, and government officials.
Privately, Apple executives say the world is now such a changed place that it is a mistake to measure a company’s contribution simply by tallying its employees — though they note that Apple employs more workers in the United States than ever before.
They say Apple’s success has benefited the economy by empowering entrepreneurs and creating jobs at companies like cellular providers and businesses shipping Apple products. And, ultimately, they say curing unemployment is not their job.
“We sell iPhones in over a hundred countries,” a current Apple executive said. “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.”
‘I Want a Glass Screen’
In 2007, a little over a month before the iPhone was scheduled to appear in stores, Mr. Jobs beckoned a handful of lieutenants into an office. For weeks, he had been carrying a prototype of the device in his pocket.
Mr. Jobs angrily held up his iPhone, angling it so everyone could see the dozens of tiny scratches marring its plastic screen, according to someone who attended the meeting. He then pulled his keys from his jeans.
People will carry this phone in their pocket, he said. People also carry their keys in their pocket. “I won’t sell a product that gets scratched,” he said tensely. The only solution was using unscratchable glass instead. “I want a glass screen, and I want it perfect in six weeks.”
After one executive left that meeting, he booked a flight to Shenzhen, China. If Mr. Jobs wanted perfect, there was nowhere else to go.
For over two years, the company had been working on a project — code-named Purple 2 — that presented the same questions at every turn: how do you completely reimagine the cellphone? And how do you design it at the highest quality — with an unscratchable screen, for instance — while also ensuring that millions can be manufactured quickly and inexpensively enough to earn a significant profit?
The answers, almost every time, were found outside the United States. Though components differ between versions, all iPhones contain hundreds of parts, an estimated 90 percent of which are manufactured abroad. Advanced semiconductors have come from Germany and Taiwan, memory from Korea and Japan, display panels and circuitry from Korea and Taiwan, chipsets from Europe and rare metals from Africa and Asia. And all of it is put together in China.
In its early days, Apple usually didn’t look beyond its own backyard for manufacturing solutions. A few years after Apple began building the Macintosh in 1983, for instance, Mr. Jobs bragged that it was “a machine that is made in America.” In 1990, while Mr. Jobs was running NeXT, which was eventually bought by Apple, the executive told a reporter that “I’m as proud of the factory as I am of the computer.” As late as 2002, top Apple executives occasionally drove two hours northeast of their headquarters to visit the company’s iMac plant in Elk Grove, Calif.
But by 2004, Apple had largely turned to foreign manufacturing. Guiding that decision was Apple’s operations expert, Timothy D. Cook, who replaced Mr. Jobs as chief executive last August, six weeks before Mr. Jobs’s death. Most other American electronics companies had already gone abroad, and Apple, which at the time was struggling, felt it had to grasp every advantage.
In part, Asia was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t driving Apple. For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies.
For Mr. Cook, the focus on Asia “came down to two things,” said one former high-ranking Apple executive. Factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what’s in the U.S.” The result is that “we can’t compete at this point,” the executive said.
The impact of such advantages became obvious as soon as Mr. Jobs demanded glass screens in 2007.
For years, cellphone makers had avoided using glass because it required precision in cutting and grinding that was extremely difficult to achieve. Apple had already selected an American company, Corning Inc., to manufacture large panes of strengthened glass. But figuring out how to cut those panes into millions of iPhone screens required finding an empty cutting plant, hundreds of pieces of glass to use in experiments and an army of midlevel engineers. It would cost a fortune simply to prepare.
Then a bid for the work arrived from a Chinese factory.
When an Apple team visited, the Chinese plant’s owners were already constructing a new wing. “This is in case you give us the contract,” the manager said, according to a former Apple executive. The Chinese government had agreed to underwrite costs for numerous industries, and those subsidies had trickled down to the glass-cutting factory. It had a warehouse filled with glass samples available to Apple, free of charge. The owners made engineers available at almost no cost. They had built on-site dormitories so employees would be available 24 hours a day.
The Chinese plant got the job.
“The entire supply chain is in China now,” said another former high-ranking Apple executive. “You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours.”
In Foxconn City
An eight-hour drive from that glass factory is a complex, known informally as Foxconn City, where the iPhone is assembled. To Apple executives, Foxconn City was further evidence that China could deliver workers — and diligence — that outpaced their American counterparts.
That’s because nothing like Foxconn City exists in the United States.
The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $ 17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.
Foxconn employs nearly 300 guards to direct foot traffic so workers are not crushed in doorway bottlenecks. The facility’s central kitchen cooks an average of three tons of pork and 13 tons of rice a day. While factories are spotless, the air inside nearby teahouses is hazy with the smoke and stench of cigarettes.
Foxconn Technology has dozens of facilities in Asia and Eastern Europe, and in Mexico and Brazil, and it assembles an estimated 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics for customers like Amazon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Samsung and Sony.
“They could hire 3,000 people overnight,” said Jennifer Rigoni, who was Apple’s worldwide supply demand manager until 2010, but declined to discuss specifics of her work. “What U.S. plant can find 3,000 people overnight and convince them to live in dorms?”
In mid-2007, after a month of experimentation, Apple’s engineers finally perfected a method for cutting strengthened glass so it could be used in the iPhone’s screen. The first truckloads of cut glass arrived at Foxconn City in the dead of night, according to the former Apple executive. That’s when managers woke thousands of workers, who crawled into their uniforms — white and black shirts for men, red for women — and quickly lined up to assemble, by hand, the phones. Within three months, Apple had sold one million iPhones. Since then, Foxconn has assembled over 200 million more.
Foxconn, in statements, declined to speak about specific clients.
“Any worker recruited by our firm is covered by a clear contract outlining terms and conditions and by Chinese government law that protects their rights,” the company wrote. Foxconn “takes our responsibility to our employees very seriously and we work hard to give our more than one million employees a safe and positive environment.”
The company disputed some details of the former Apple executive’s account, and wrote that a midnight shift, such as the one described, was impossible “because we have strict regulations regarding the working hours of our employees based on their designated shifts, and every employee has computerized timecards that would bar them from working at any facility at a time outside of their approved shift.” The company said that all shifts began at either 7 a.m. or 7 p.m., and that employees receive at least 12 hours’ notice of any schedule changes.
Foxconn employees, in interviews, have challenged those assertions.
Another critical advantage for Apple was that China provided engineers at a scale the United States could not match. Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.
In China, it took 15 days.
Companies like Apple “say the challenge in setting up U.S. plants is finding a technical work force,” said Martin Schmidt, associate provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In particular, companies say they need engineers with more than high school, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree. Americans at that skill level are hard to find, executives contend. “They’re good jobs, but the country doesn’t have enough to feed the demand,” Mr. Schmidt said.
Some aspects of the iPhone are uniquely American. The device’s software, for instance, and its innovative marketing campaigns were largely created in the United States. Apple recently built a $ 500 million data center in North Carolina. Crucial semiconductors inside the iPhone 4 and 4S are manufactured in an Austin, Tex., factory by Samsung, of South Korea.
But even those facilities are not enormous sources of jobs. Apple’s North Carolina center, for instance, has only 100 full-time employees. The Samsung plant has an estimated 2,400 workers.
“If you scale up from selling one million phones to 30 million phones, you don’t really need more programmers,” said Jean-Louis Gassée, who oversaw product development and marketing for Apple until he left in 1990. “All these new companies — Facebook, Google, Twitter — benefit from this. They grow, but they don’t really need to hire much.”
It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $ 65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward.
But such calculations are, in many respects, meaningless because building the iPhone in the United States would demand much more than hiring Americans — it would require transforming the national and global economies. Apple executives believe there simply aren’t enough American workers with the skills the company needs or factories with sufficient speed and flexibility. Other companies that work with Apple, like Corning, also say they must go abroad.
Manufacturing glass for the iPhone revived a Corning factory in Kentucky, and today, much of the glass in iPhones is still made there. After the iPhone became a success, Corning received a flood of orders from other companies hoping to imitate Apple’s designs. Its strengthened glass sales have grown to more than $ 700 million a year, and it has hired or continued employing about 1,000 Americans to support the emerging market.
But as that market has expanded, the bulk of Corning’s strengthened glass manufacturing has occurred at plants in Japan and Taiwan.
“Our customers are in Taiwan, Korea, Japan and China,” said James B. Flaws, Corning’s vice chairman and chief financial officer. “We could make the glass here, and then ship it by boat, but that takes 35 days. Or, we could ship it by air, but that’s 10 times as expensive. So we build our glass factories next door to assembly factories, and those are overseas.”
Corning was founded in America 161 years ago and its headquarters are still in upstate New York. Theoretically, the company could manufacture all its glass domestically. But it would “require a total overhaul in how the industry is structured,” Mr. Flaws said. “The consumer electronics business has become an Asian business. As an American, I worry about that, but there’s nothing I can do to stop it. Asia has become what the U.S. was for the last 40 years.”
Middle-Class Jobs Fade
The first time Eric Saragoza stepped into Apple’s manufacturing plant in Elk Grove, Calif., he felt as if he were entering an engineering wonderland.
It was 1995, and the facility near Sacramento employed more than 1,500 workers. It was a kaleidoscope of robotic arms, conveyor belts ferrying circuit boards and, eventually, candy-colored iMacs in various stages of assembly. Mr. Saragoza, an engineer, quickly moved up the plant’s ranks and joined an elite diagnostic team. His salary climbed to $ 50,000. He and his wife had three children. They bought a home with a pool.
“It felt like, finally, school was paying off,” he said. “I knew the world needed people who can build things.”
At the same time, however, the electronics industry was changing, and Apple — with products that were declining in popularity — was struggling to remake itself. One focus was improving manufacturing. A few years after Mr. Saragoza started his job, his bosses explained how the California plant stacked up against overseas factories: the cost, excluding the materials, of building a $ 1,500 computer in Elk Grove was $ 22 a machine. In Singapore, it was $ 6. In Taiwan, $ 4.85. Wages weren’t the major reason for the disparities. Rather it was costs like inventory and how long it took workers to finish a task.
“We were told we would have to do 12-hour days, and come in on Saturdays,” Mr. Saragoza said. “I had a family. I wanted to see my kids play soccer.”
Modernization has always caused some kinds of jobs to change or disappear. As the American economy transitioned from agriculture to manufacturing and then to other industries, farmers became steelworkers, and then salesmen and middle managers. These shifts have carried many economic benefits, and in general, with each progression, even unskilled workers received better wages and greater chances at upward mobility.
But in the last two decades, something more fundamental has changed, economists say. Midwage jobs started disappearing. Particularly among Americans without college degrees, today’s new jobs are disproportionately in service occupations — at restaurants or call centers, or as hospital attendants or temporary workers — that offer fewer opportunities for reaching the middle class.
Even Mr. Saragoza, with his college degree, was vulnerable to these trends. First, some of Elk Grove’s routine tasks were sent overseas. Mr. Saragoza didn’t mind. Then the robotics that made Apple a futuristic playground allowed executives to replace workers with machines. Some diagnostic engineering went to Singapore. Middle managers who oversaw the plant’s inventory were laid off because, suddenly, a few people with Internet connections were all that were needed.
Mr. Saragoza was too expensive for an unskilled position. He was also insufficiently credentialed for upper management. He was called into a small office in 2002 after a night shift, laid off and then escorted from the plant. He taught high school for a while, and then tried a return to technology. But Apple, which had helped anoint the region as “Silicon Valley North,” had by then converted much of the Elk Grove plant into an AppleCare call center, where new employees often earn $ 12 an hour.
There were employment prospects in Silicon Valley, but none of them panned out. “What they really want are 30-year-olds without children,” said Mr. Saragoza, who today is 48, and whose family now includes five of his own.
After a few months of looking for work, he started feeling desperate. Even teaching jobs had dried up. So he took a position with an electronics temp agency that had been hired by Apple to check returned iPhones and iPads before they were sent back to customers. Every day, Mr. Saragoza would drive to the building where he had once worked as an engineer, and for $ 10 an hour with no benefits, wipe thousands of glass screens and test audio ports by plugging in headphones.
Paydays for Apple
As Apple’s overseas operations and sales have expanded, its top employees have thrived. Last fiscal year, Apple’s revenue topped $ 108 billion, a sum larger than the combined state budgets of Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Since 2005, when the company’s stock split, share prices have risen from about $ 45 to more than $ 427.
Some of that wealth has gone to shareholders. Apple is among the most widely held stocks, and the rising share price has benefited millions of individual investors, 401(k)’s and pension plans. The bounty has also enriched Apple workers. Last fiscal year, in addition to their salaries, Apple’s employees and directors received stock worth $ 2 billion and exercised or vested stock and options worth an added $ 1.4 billion.
The biggest rewards, however, have often gone to Apple’s top employees. Mr. Cook, Apple’s chief, last year received stock grants — which vest over a 10-year period — that, at today’s share price, would be worth $ 427 million, and his salary was raised to $ 1.4 million. In 2010, Mr. Cook’s compensation package was valued at $ 59 million, according to Apple’s security filings.
A person close to Apple argued that the compensation received by Apple’s employees was fair, in part because the company had brought so much value to the nation and world. As the company has grown, it has expanded its domestic work force, including manufacturing jobs. Last year, Apple’s American work force grew by 8,000 people.
While other companies have sent call centers abroad, Apple has kept its centers in the United States. One source estimated that sales of Apple’s products have caused other companies to hire tens of thousands of Americans. FedEx and United Parcel Service, for instance, both say they have created American jobs because of the volume of Apple’s shipments, though neither would provide specific figures without permission from Apple, which the company declined to provide.
“We shouldn’t be criticized for using Chinese workers,” a current Apple executive said. “The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need.”
What’s more, Apple sources say the company has created plenty of good American jobs inside its retail stores and among entrepreneurs selling iPhone and iPad applications.
After two months of testing iPads, Mr. Saragoza quit. The pay was so low that he was better off, he figured, spending those hours applying for other jobs. On a recent October evening, while Mr. Saragoza sat at his MacBook and submitted another round of résumés online, halfway around the world a woman arrived at her office. The worker, Lina Lin, is a project manager in Shenzhen, China, at PCH International, which contracts with Apple and other electronics companies to coordinate production of accessories, like the cases that protect the iPad’s glass screens. She is not an Apple employee. But Mrs. Lin is integral to Apple’s ability to deliver its products.
Mrs. Lin earns a bit less than what Mr. Saragoza was paid by Apple. She speaks fluent English, learned from watching television and in a Chinese university. She and her husband put a quarter of their salaries in the bank every month. They live in a 1,080-square-foot apartment, which they share with their in-laws and son.
“There are lots of jobs,” Mrs. Lin said. “Especially in Shenzhen.”
Innovation’s Losers
Toward the end of Mr. Obama’s dinner last year with Mr. Jobs and other Silicon Valley executives, as everyone stood to leave, a crowd of photo seekers formed around the president. A slightly smaller scrum gathered around Mr. Jobs. Rumors had spread that his illness had worsened, and some hoped for a photograph with him, perhaps for the last time.
Eventually, the orbits of the men overlapped. “I’m not worried about the country’s long-term future,” Mr. Jobs told Mr. Obama, according to one observer. “This country is insanely great. What I’m worried about is that we don’t talk enough about solutions.”
At dinner, for instance, the executives had suggested that the government should reform visa programs to help companies hire foreign engineers. Some had urged the president to give companies a “tax holiday” so they could bring back overseas profits which, they argued, would be used to create work. Mr. Jobs even suggested it might be possible, someday, to locate some of Apple’s skilled manufacturing in the United States if the government helped train more American engineers.
Economists debate the usefulness of those and other efforts, and note that a struggling economy is sometimes transformed by unexpected developments. The last time analysts wrung their hands about prolonged American unemployment, for instance, in the early 1980s, the Internet hardly existed. Few at the time would have guessed that a degree in graphic design was rapidly becoming a smart bet, while studying telephone repair a dead end.
What remains unknown, however, is whether the United States will be able to leverage tomorrow’s innovations into millions of jobs.
In the last decade, technological leaps in solar and wind energy, semiconductor fabrication and display technologies have created thousands of jobs. But while many of those industries started in America, much of the employment has occurred abroad. Companies have closed major facilities in the United States to reopen in China. By way of explanation, executives say they are competing with Apple for shareholders. If they cannot rival Apple’s growth and profit margins, they won’t survive.
“New middle-class jobs will eventually emerge,” said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist. “But will someone in his 40s have the skills for them? Or will he be bypassed for a new graduate and never find his way back into the middle class?”
The pace of innovation, say executives from a variety of industries, has been quickened by businessmen like Mr. Jobs. G.M. went as long as half a decade between major automobile redesigns. Apple, by comparison, has released five iPhones in four years, doubling the devices’ speed and memory while dropping the price that some consumers pay.
Before Mr. Obama and Mr. Jobs said goodbye, the Apple executive pulled an iPhone from his pocket to show off a new application — a driving game — with incredibly detailed graphics. The device reflected the soft glow of the room’s lights. The other executives, whose combined worth exceeded $ 69 billion, jostled for position to glance over his shoulder. The game, everyone agreed, was wonderful.
There wasn’t even a tiny scratch on the screen.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

Less U.S. Children Are Born

First appeared in the Wall Street Journal
The U.S. under-18 population fell between 2010 and 2011, the first time in at least two decades that the country has seen its minor population decline, according to demographers and new Census data.
The U.S. under-18 population was 73,934,272 in July 2011, a decline of 247,000 or 0.3% from July of 2010, according to an analysis of Census data by a demographer at The Brookings Institution. The child population is still up 2.3% from 2000, largely because of gains made in the early-decade boom years.
The child population is falling because fewer immigrant children are coming across U.S. borders, and because fewer children are being born. Meantime, the so-called millennial generation is moving into adulthood. With fertility rates down, The Brookings Institution says “it doesn’t look like a youth boom will reverberate anytime soon.”
The U.S. minor population fell in the 1970s as well, as baby boomers moved into adulthood and women entered the labor force en masse, delaying families in the process. A large drop in fertility was also behind a decline in minors between 1920 and 1930.
States with the biggest drop in children tended to be concentrated in the aging Rust Belt and New England. Every New England state saw its under 18 population fall 1% or greater from April 2010 to July 2011 (state Estimates are over a different time period than the national tally). Michigan and Pennsylvania were also big losers. Also, while the drops were small, states including Arizona and Nevada saw their minor populations fall after huge gains earlier in the decade.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

Barnes & Noble Takes on Technology

First appeared in the Wall Street Journal
Barnes & Noble Inc. is the latest old-school company to discover how costly it can be to try to reinvent itself for a digital future.
The nation’s largest bookstore chain warned Thursday it would lose twice as much money this fiscal year as it previously expected, and said it is weighing splitting off its growing Nook digital-book business from its aging bookstores.
Over the past 15 years, rapid technological change has transformed the company from a dominant retailing force that left smaller booksellers quaking in fear to a struggling giant grasping for a plan to ensure its long-term relevance to the publishing industry.
Barnes & Noble realized early on that e-books could appeal to consumers, but allowed Amazon.com Inc. to get an early leg up. Now it is locked in a battle with Amazon and another deep-pocketed rival, Apple Inc., to sell both electronic books and the high-tech devices consumers use to read them.
Digital technology continues to roil all manner of once-dominant companies. Former giants such as Blockbuster Inc., Circuit City and Barnes & Noble’s main book-chain rival, Borders Group Inc., have struggled mightily—and in some cases, disappeared altogether—in the face of digital competitors including Netflix Inc. and Amazon. Wednesday’s news that Eastman Kodak Co. was contemplating seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection underscored the severity of the technology threat.
Barnes & Noble’s stock fell 17% on Thursday. The company now may be at its most critical juncture since its chairman and largest shareholder, opened his first store in New York’s Greenwich Village in 1965.
As recently as the 1990s, Barnes & Noble was known as a carnivorous competitor with the power to wipe out independent bookstores with its steeply discounted books and sprawling stores where customers could sip coffee and read in plush chairs. In New York City, the emergence of a Barnes & Noble on the Upper West Side was partly responsible for the mid-1990s closing of the beloved neighborhood bookseller Shakespeare & Company—the kind of narrative arc that cropped up in the movie “You’ve Got Mail.”
Ironically, Barnes & Noble had been one of the first to recognize the potential of digital books. In 1998, it invested in NuvoMedia Inc., maker of the Rocket eBook reader, and the bookseller actively supported digital-book sales. But in 2003, it exited the still-nascent business, saying there wasn’t any profit in it.
It wasn’t until 2009 that Barnes & Noble re-entered the business, introducing its Nook e-reader. By then, Amazon had been selling its Kindle device for about two years, and was offering best sellers for $ 9.99, a fraction of what hardcover best sellers are priced at.
Apple introduced its iPad tablet in January 2010. Amazon responded with its competing Kindle Fire tablet this past September, and in November, Barnes & Noble introduced its Nook Tablet.
E-book sales have skyrocketed, jumping to $ 863 million in 2010, from $ 62 million in 2008, according to BookStats, a joint-research venture between the Book Industry Study Group and the Association of American Publishers. One publisher predicted Thursday that e-books could account for as much as 40% of total revenue by the end of the year.
Although Barnes & Noble was late to the game, its devices have won critical praise, and publishers estimate today that it controls as much as 27% of the digital-books market. “We saw more growth with e-books with Barnes & Noble this Christmas than anybody else,” said the publisher.
But those sales have come at an enormous cost. Developing, manufacturing and promoting e-readers and tablets requires heavy upfront spending. Barnes & Noble’s spending on advertising has more than tripled since 2009, according to Kantar Media, an ad-tracking unit of WPP PLC. To promote the Nook, the retailer returned to national TV advertising in 2010, after a 14-year hiatus, buying spots on popular programs such as “American Idol.”
The heavy Nook investment has squeezed Barnes & Noble’s bottom line. Largely as a result, its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization—a critical measure of earnings—fell to $ 163 million in the fiscal year ending April 30, 2011, from $ 281 million in fiscal 2010.
When Barnes & Noble’s stock weakened, the company came under pressure from an activist investor. In response, the chairman, who maintains control with a stake of about 30%, put the company up for sale in August 2010. Last May, Liberty Media Corp. made a bid to buy the business. The chairman appeared to support the bid, but Liberty Media eventually opted to invest $ 204 million for a 16.6% stake, receiving two board seats.
This holiday season has offered a ray of hope. Barnes & Noble said device sales had risen 70% for the nine-week period ending Dec. 31, compared with the year-ago period. It said the Nook business is likely to notch $ 1.5 billion in sales in the current fiscal year, compared with $ 880 million a year earlier. That business includes the Nook devices, digital-book sales, accessories, magazine and newspaper sales, app sales and sales of warranties.
On Thursday, Barnes & Noble increased its projected loss per share for the current fiscal year to between $ 1.10 and $ 1.40, from the 30 cents to 70 cents it reaffirmed one month ago.
Barnes & Noble blamed an unexpected shortfall of sales of the Nook Simple Touch e-reader on a Christmas where consumers embraced color digital devices, including the Nook Tablet and Amazon’s Kindle Fire. The e-reader sales shortfall is significant because of its ripple effect on projected sales of related products, including e-books and accessories.
“We over-anticipated the demand for the holiday season,” said the company’s chief executive officer.
He said Barnes & Noble has plenty of capital to continue financing the Nook expansion, including a $ 1 billion credit line.
But in a comment at an investor conference on Wednesday,the Liberty Media Chief Executive hinted that Barnes & Noble might need help to continue building the business. Competing with Apple and Amazon, he said, was a “big-boy game.” He said Barnes & Noble may find “partners to help fund that game, meaning the public or strategic partners.”
Barnes & Noble said in a statement on Thursday it was “in discussions with strategic partners including publishers, retailers and technology companies in international markets.” It said that could lead to expanding the Nook business overseas.
One possibility is that Barnes & Noble could sell a minority stake in the Nook business in a public offering. The two businesses would likely have different managements and different boards. Under such a scenario, Barnes & Noble would continue to have close ties to its Nook devices. Another possibility is selling the Nook business outright.
A portfolio manager for Aria Partner, a Boston-based investment firm that owns a stake in Barnes & Noble, suggested one logical buyer could be Google Inc., whose e-book store has had only a minimal impact so far. “The Nook business alone could be worth $ 1.5 billion,” said the manager. The Nook runs on Google’s Android software. Google declined to comment.
Another potential partner is Microsoft Corp., people familiar with the situation said. Microsoft declined to comment.
The idea for splitting off the Nook business may partly reflect the influence of Liberty Media, whose chairman, John Malone, and chief executive, Mr. Maffei, are experienced at devising complex financial structures to highlight the value of businesses. Mr. Maffei and another Liberty executive are on Barnes & Noble’s board.
“This is classic Malone,” noted a Maxim Group analyst.
The idea came up during the company’s long-running strategic-review process, which began in the summer of 2010, according to people familiar with the situation. Barnes & Noble executives and the board discussed how the company could increase shareholder value and improve its stock price, these people said, and separating the Nook business was one suggestion.
The idea was also embraced by Liberty, said another person familiar with the situation.
Barnes & Noble said the decision to explore the potential sale of the Nook business was a board-level decision that had the full support of the company.
Investors have shown they are in favor of companies overhauling their structures to focus their business divisions, applauding moves by McGraw-Hill Cos., Kraft Foods and other companies that separated businesses last year.
Barnes & Noble investors may not have the patience to fund Nook growth here and abroad, said a Forrester Research analyst. “It’s going to require sustained investment.”

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

End of Line for Two Homeowners

First appeared in Contra Costa Times
Business at two Antioch banks was disrupted Friday by protesters demanding help for two homeowners who haven’t been able to pay their mortgage.
About three dozen members and supporters of a grass roots social justice organization went to the Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank branches on Somersville Road asking officials there to intervene on behalf of an elderly Antioch woman who lost her home just days ago as well as a Concord couple that received an eviction notice last month.
Holding signs and chanting, they asked employees to fax a letter to the banks’ chief executive officers insisting that the companies work with these people they had victimized with their “predatory lending practices.”
Bank of America refused and called the police, who dispersed the crowd by warning that they would be arrested if they didn’t leave, said John Adams, local director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
The crowd then walked to Wells Fargo, where the branch manager agreed to fax the plea to rescind its foreclosure on Eva Cader, a 78-year-old Antioch woman who was evicted Jan. 3 while trying to obtain a loan modification, Adams said.
Although the Bank of America branch didn’t comply with the group’s request, its manager discovered she knew Jessi Koritz, a small-business owner who frequents the Concord branch where she used to work.
The woman promised she would bring his case to the attention of those who mightbe able to forestall his eviction and modify the terms of his loan.
Grappling with financial setbacks from a job loss and workplace injuries, Koritz and his wife, Pamela, have been struggling to keep the first home they have owned for most of the 5½ years they have been in it.
“We’re just trying to live the American dream,” said Koritz, who hasn’t made a mortgage payment since July 2008.
He initially had tried to renegotiate the loan but says the bank told him it couldn’t do anything unless he was delinquent.
Although Koritz is reluctant to pin his hopes on Bank of America having a change of heart, Adams says he’s optimistic because of what the groundswell of opposition to lending practices already has accomplished.
“We’re acting on the knowledge that this is happening across the country,” he said. “People are shining a light on their case and — lo and behold — the bank will take a look and end up working something out.”
That’s exactly what Bank of America has been doing, said media relations director Britney Sheehan, noting that the company has made more Home Affordable Modification Program loans than any other lender.
The bank has processed about 200,000 of those loans in California alone since the housing crisis began in 2008, she said.
Moreover, Bank of America works with nonprofits like the housing counseling agency NACA to prevent foreclosures and has opened dozens of customer assistance centers in the hardest hit housing markets around the country — it’s opening one in San Mateo in the next few weeks — where homeowners can talk to mortgage specialists about their loan, Sheehan said.
It’s not in the bank’s interest for customers to lose their homes, she said.
“While some would have the public believe that banks make a profit on foreclosures and evictions, the truth is that the process is tremendously costly for all parties,” she said.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

Teach Banks to Share and Move Your Money

First appeared in Contra Costa Times
Dozens of moms, dads and their kids protested the nation’s biggest banks Friday with a stroller march that called on bank customers to switch to credit unions.
About 60 parents and their young children took part in Friday’s “Teach Banks to Share” demonstration, which was organized by a group called the Colorful Mamas of the 99 Percent.
The stroller-pushing parents marched through downtown Oakland in support of the national “Move Your Money” campaign, which is urging customers of big banks to close their accounts and join credit unions by Saturday, which is being dubbed “Bank Transfer Day.”
The campaign has gained momentum with the expansion of the Occupy Wall Street protests nationwide.
The protesters beat drums and chanted “Time out! You better share!” as they marched to a Wells Fargo branch. The group rallied outside while two mothers went inside and closed their accounts.
“We believe that the money needs to go from the 1 percent to all of us to pay for schools, health care, putting food on the table and our kids’ future,” protester Mimi Ho, carrying her baby, told the crowd after closing her Wells Fargo account.
The protesters said big banks such as Wells Fargo & Co. don’t pay enough taxes or contribute enough to their communities, despite having received tens of billions of dollars in federal bailout funds and posting multibillion-dollar profits.
“We want reinvestment in our communities. We want corporations and large banks to pay their fair share of taxes,” said Prishni Murillo, 33, an Oakland mother of two.
Wells Fargo spokesman Ruben Pulido said the San Francisco-based bank been an industry leader in charitable giving, modifying mortgages and lending money to small businesses.
“We’re doing a lot to strengthen communities in the Bay Area and around the country,” Pulido said.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

In the Past?: the Post Office and Kodak

First appeared in Jewish World Review
The news that Eastman Kodak is preparing to file forbankruptcy, after being the leading photographic company in the world for morethan a hundred years, truly marks the end of an era.
The skills required to use the cameras and chemicalsrequired by the photography of the mid-19th century were far beyond those ofmost people — until a man named George Eastman created a company called Kodak,which made cameras that ordinary people could use.
It was Kodak’s humble and affordable box Brownie that putphotography on the map for millions of people, who just wanted to take simplepictures of family, friends and places they visited.
As the complicated photographic plates used by 19th centuryphotographers gave way to film, Kodak became the leading film maker of the 20thcentury. But sales of film declined for the first time in 2000, and sales ofdigital cameras surpassed the sales of film cameras just 3 years later. Just asKodak’s technology made older modes of photography obsolete more than a hundredyears ago, so the new technology of the digital age has left Kodak behind.
Great names of companies in other fields have likewisevanished as new technology brought new rivals to the forefront, or else madethe whole product obsolete, as happened with typewriters, slide rules and otherproducts now remembered only by an older generation. That is what happens in amarket economy and we all benefit from it as consumers.
Unfortunately, that is not what happens in government. Thepost office is a classic example. Post offices were once even more importantthan Eastman Kodak, and for a longer time, as the mail provided vitalcommunications linking people and organizations across thousands of miles. But,today, technology has moved even further beyond the post office than it hasbeyond Eastman Kodak.
The difference is that, although the Postal Service istechnically a private business, its income doesn’t cover all its costs — andtaxpayers are on the hook for the difference.
Moreover, the government makes it illegal for anyone else toput anything into your mail box, even though you bought the mail box and it isyour property. That means you don’t have the option to have some other privatecompany deliver your mail.
In India, when private companies like Federal Express andUnited Parcel Service were allowed to deliver mail, the amount of maildelivered by that country’s post offices was cut in half between 2000 and 2005.
What should be the fate of the Postal Service in the UnitedStates? In a sense, no one really knows. Nor is there any reason why theyshould.
The real answer to the question whether the Postal Serviceis worth what it is costing can be found only when various indirect governmentsubsidies stop and when the government stops forbidding others from carryingthe mail — if that ever happens.
If FedEx, UPS or someone else can carry the mail cheaper orbetter than the Postal Service, there is no reason why the public should notget the benefit of having their mail delivered cheaper or better.
Politics is the reason why no such test is likely any timesoon. Various special interests currently benefit from the way the post officeis run — and especially by the way government backing keeps it afloat.
Junk mail, for example, does not have to cover all itscosts. You might be happy to get less junk mail if it had to pay a postage ratethat covered the full cost of delivering it. But people who send junk mailwould lobby Congress to stay on the gravy train.
So would people who live in remote areas, where the cost ofdelivering all mail is higher. But if people who decide to live in remote areasdon’t pay the costs that their decision imposes on the Postal Service, electricutilities and others, why should other people be forced to pay those costs?
A society in which some people make decisions, and otherpeople are forced to pay the costs created by those decisions, is a societywhere a lot of decisions can be made despite their costs being greater thantheir benefits.
That is why the post office should have to face competitionin the market, instead of lobbying politicians for government help. We cannotpreserve everything that was once useful.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

Zappos Was Hacked, 24 Million Customers Affected

First appeared in Forbes
Twenty-four million Zappos customers are getting an unpleasantSunday-evening surprise.
The Amazon-owned e-commerce firm has revealed that it wasthe target of a cyber-attack that gained access to its internal network,including the accounts of 24 million of its users. Though the company says thatno complete credit card numbers were revealed in the breach, the intruders mayhave accessed customers’ names, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, addresses, thelast four digits of their credit card numbers, and encrypted passwords. Zappossays it’s taken the precaution of resetting the passwords of all its customersand directing them to set a new password upon visiting the site.
“We were recently the victim of a cyber-attack by a criminalwho gained access to parts of our internal network and systems through one ofour servers in Kentucky,” the chief executive wrote to Zappos employees in anemail posted to the site, declining to offer more information about the breach.”We are cooperating with law enforcement to undergo an exhaustiveinvestigation.”
Even after choosing a new Zappos password, users should becareful to also change their passwords on any site where they’ve used a similaror identical password, in case Zappos’ intruders are able to decrypt thescrambled passwords they’ve stolen. Zappos is also warning affected customersto watch out for phishing emails that will use their stolen email addresses tospoof official Zappos emails and ask for account credentials or financialdetails.
The chief executive wrote in his all-hands email that everyemployee at Zappos’ Henderson, Nevada headquarters will be assisting in thecustomer response to the breach, and that the company will only be respondingto emails rather than phone calls in its effort to answer the massive number ofqueries that it expects to receive. ”We’ve spent over 12 years building our reputation, brand, and trustwith our customers. It’s painful to see us take so many steps back due to asingle incident,” he wrote in the email. “I suppose the one saving grace isthat the database that stores our customers’ critical credit card and otherpayment data was not affected or accessed.”
Zappos customers can change their passwords.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

Apartment Complex Sold for Millions

First appeared in Times Union
CBRE Albany said Thursday that it assisted in the sale ofthe Wade Lupe Towers and Garden Apartment Complex, a 208-unit complex on QueensBoulevard in Schenectady.
The ten-building complex, which sits on nearly 11 acres andis next to the Stadium Golf Club, sold for $ 8.25 million to a Rockland Countycompany, Wade Estates LLC.
Involved in the sale for CBRE Albany were John MacAffer, DanSimpson and Ann MacAffer.

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

CEOs Making Money

First appeared on CNN Money
If you could bluff your way into an S&P 500 CEO job, how many days would you have to rough it to earn your current annual pay?
You’d rack up $ 24,473 per day 365 days a year if you were just middle of the pack, according to a recent GMI study of S&P 500 CEO pay in 2010. Your annual earnings on a weekly basis would be more than $ 171,000; for 60 days, that’d be a cool $ 1.5 million.
Of course, if you were a top negotiator, maybe you’d take home what McKesson (MCK) CEO John Hammergren did in 2010. His daily haul, based on his annual pay, was around $ 398,000, with a weekly total of $ 2.8 million and a 60-day payout of nearly $ 24 million.
Could you put up with the rigors given those rates?
Working the one job 24/7
Maybe you’re concerned that if you took a job like that, it might engulf your life 24/7. There’d be no time for extracurricular activities.
Not to worry. You’d have the opportunity to work a part-time job too, earning some pocket change on the side. For example, take Hammergren, who took home the biggest bucks in 2010 ($ 145 million in total compensation), according to GMI. Beyond serving as CEO of McKesson, he has been a board member at HP (HPQ), which paid him around $ 387,000 last year. As a member of the board’s compensation committee, Hammergren has been busy with CEO pay negotiations in recent years.
In 2010, when HP showed former CEO Mark Hurd the door following an investigation into his behavior, Hurd was given $ 12 million cash plus vesting of some stock. Based on Hammergren’s own 2010 wages, $ 12 million would translate to just 30 days severance. Is that so unreasonable? Under the original agreement, Hurd was also entitled to stock valued $ 15 million or more. He gave that up, though, in the kerfuffle related to his decision to join Oracle (ORCL) as its co-president.
Hammergren also reportedly volunteered to be on the search committee that identified Hurd’s successor, former HP CEO Leo Apotheker. With less than one year of service, Apotheker was ousted last year and walked away with around $ 25 million. Sound like a lot?  That would only amount to slightly more than 60 days severance based on Hammergren’s 2010 pay.
In any event, this one example should ease your mind somewhat. Being a CEO of a major S&P 500 firm does not mean you have to work the one job 24/7.
Cranky investors? Not quite.
What about investor expectations? With large CEO paydays, aren’t investors bound to be snarky?
Maybe, but they don’t really expect that much, when you consider what they’re used to getting in the way of returns. The S&P 500 is down nearly 9% from where it was five years ago. Just working to move the dial a bit forward (rather than backward) will make you a hero. In Hammergren’s case, McKesson stock has considerably outperformed the index.
The GMI study notes that some parts of McKesson’s executive compensation practices raise eyebrows, like a half a billion dollars Hammergren would be owed if the company were acquired. Still, the board believes his pay is warranted given the company’s strong returns, and investors approved his compensation plan last year.
Board oversight, in more ways than one
But what about other boards — do you need to be concerned that bonus bonanzas could meet their demise, especially since the S&P 500 is now sitting at levels that had already been achieved in the 90s? Isn’t pay for performance a major concern of boards today?
The issue is important to boards, according to a recent survey by the National Association of Corporate Directors and compensation firm Pearl Meyer and Partners. But there is no need for alarm. According to the survey, “More than 80% [of board members] …stated they are ‘confident’ or ‘very confident’ about how well their current [compensation] programs address the broader challenge of aligning CEO pay with performance.”
Populist outrage: Long on anger, short on attention span
What about public outcry — could that influence high pay? Again, prospective CEOs can put their fears to rest.
The U.S. retail investing public is generally indifferent and does not even monitor the pay votes of mutual fund managers, much less hold them accountable for those made on their behalf. And the Occupy movement (or a successor) would have to significantly expand its reach to truly take CEO pay practices to task.
There is some trouble brewing across the pond. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has called for a binding investor vote on pay (one that would require a response from a company) and some members of Parliament want board compensation committees to have employee representation. There’s no immediate threat, though. It took eight years for the U.S. to adopt an advisory say on pay, following in the UK’s footsteps.
All in all, it’s a rosy picture. So what are you going to do? Any reason you wouldn’t aspire to be an S&P 500 CEO?

Business News Blog – Daily Business News – Peak Newsroom

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »