AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter Earnings

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. (“MITT” or the “Company”) (NYSE: MITT – News) today reported net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2011 of $5.8 million and net book value of $20.52 per share.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

• Net income of $5.8 million, or 0.58 per share for the fourth quarter
• Net income of $19.0 million, or $3.20 per share for the period from March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011
• Core Earnings of $6.5 million or $0.65 per share for the quarter
• Core Earnings of $12.4 million, or $1.24 per share for the period from July 6, 2011 (the consummation of our initial public offering) to December 31, 2011
• Net realized gains of $2.9 million, or $0.29 per share, on Agency RMBS for the fourth quarter and $7.2 million, or $0.72 per share, for the period from July 6, 2011 to December 31, 2011
• Net realized losses of ($3.5) million, or ($0.35) per share, on credit investments for the fourth quarter and for the period from July 6, 2011 to December 31, 2011
• $0.70 per share dividend declared for the fourth quarter and $1.10 per share dividends declared for the period ended December 31, 2011
• Approximately $0.46 per share of undistributed taxable income as of December 31, 2011(1)
• $20.52 net book value per share as of December 31, 2011(1)

INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS

• $1.4 billion investment portfolio value as of December 31, 2011 (2) (4)
• 5.86x leverage as of December 31, 2011 (2) (3)
• 91.0% Agency RMBS investment portfolio (4)
• 9.0% credit investment portfolio, comprising Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS assets (4)
• 5.0% constant prepayment rate (“CPR”) for the fourth quarter on the Agency RMBS investment portfolio (5)
• 2.25% net interest margin as of December 31, 2011 (6)

FOURTH QUARTER 2011 AND PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 RESULTS
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is an actively managed REIT that opportunistically invests in a diversified risk-adjusted portfolio of Agency RMBS, Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS. For the fourth quarter, the Company had net income of $5.8 million, or $0.58 per diluted share, and Core Earnings of $6.5 million, or $0.65 per diluted share. For the period from March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the Company had net income of $19.0 million, or $3.20 per diluted share (7), and for the period from July 6, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (“period ended December 31, 2011”), the Company had Core Earnings of $12.4 million, or $1.24 per diluted share. Core Earnings represents a non-GAAP financial measure and is defined as net income (loss) excluding (i) net realized gain (loss) on investments and terminations on derivative contracts and (ii) net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and derivative contacts. (See “Non-GAAP Financial Measure” below for further detail on Core Earnings)
David Roberts, Chief Executive Officer, commented “We are pleased to announce our fourth quarter earnings. During the quarter, Core Earnings increased to $0.65 per share and we announced our first full quarter dividend of $0.70 per share. In addition to meeting our financial goals, we continued to diversify funding relationships and in January we were able to successfully complete an equity raise which has improved our stock’s liquidity. We are proud of our accomplishments over the last two quarters and look forward to the opportunities ahead.”
“Amidst uncertainty in the global markets, European liquidity difficulties and year-end funding pressures, we continued to optimize our Agency portfolio, opportunistically rotate the credit portfolio and retain capital for potential market dislocations,” said Jonathan Lieberman, Chief Investment Officer. “While Agency RMBS yields have compressed, we believe the low interest rate environment and a carefully selected investment portfolio will continue to support attractive risk-adjusted returns. Over the course of the quarter, we rotated a significant portion of the Agency portfolio into securities with more favorable prepayment attributes to further mitigate prepayment risk. Allocations to credit securities were concentrated in less volatile short duration Non-Agency securities and CMBS tranches with superior intrinsic value. We believe MITT is well positioned to continue to produce sustainable returns and take advantage of the opportunities ahead in both the Agency RMBS and credit markets. With the success of the European Central Bank’s Long-Term Refinancing Operation, funding risks have materially declined and we anticipate deploying capital in a more aggressive style. New capital from our January equity transaction allows greater latitude to the investment team to selectively increase our capital allocation to credit opportunities.”

KEY STATISTICS (2)
		Weighted Average at						Weighted Average
		December 31, 2011						at September 30, 2011
Investment portfolio		$	1,388,006,801					$	1,332,205,377
Repurchase agreements		$	1,189,303,407					$	1,126,859,885
Stockholders’ equity		$	206,283,920					$	207,413,703
Leverage ratio		5.86x			(3	)		5.70x			(3	)
Swap ratio			66	%	(8	)			51	%	(8	)
Yield on investment portfolio			3.16	%	(9	)			3.26	%	(9	)
Cost of funds			0.91	%	(10	)			0.82	%	(10	)
Net interest margin			2.25	%	(6	)			2.44	%	(6	)
Management fees			1.49	%	(11	)			1.43	%	(11	)
Other operating expenses			1.57	%	(12	)			1.58	%	(12	)
Book value, per share		$	20.52		(1	)		$	20.64		(1	)
Dividend, per share		$	0.70					$	0.40

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
The following summarizes the Company’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2011 (2):

														Weighted Average
		Current Face			Premium (Discount)				Amortized Cost		Fair Value			Coupon		Yield
Agency RMBS:
15-Year Fixed Rate		$	738,344,948		$	22,525,476			$	760,870,424	$	772,310,909		3.32	%	2.62	%
20-Year Fixed Rate			227,566,114			7,362,001				234,928,115		237,586,837		3.69	%	3.00	%
30-Year Fixed Rate			232,890,169			12,162,512				245,052,681		246,679,482		3.99	%	3.18	%
Interest Only			43,505,596			(34,046,500	)			9,459,096		6,636,871		5.50	%	3.45	%
Non-Agency RMBS			102,246,062			(8,980,754	)			93,265,308		90,368,316		5.90	%	6.31	%
CMBS			19,500,000			(5,411,965	)			14,088,035		13,537,851		5.88	%	13.44	%
ABS			21,046,150			(34,497	)			21,011,653		20,886,535		4.50	%	4.50	%
Total		$	1,385,099,039		$	(6,423,727	)		$	1,378,675,312	$	1,388,006,801		3.81	%	3.16	%

As of December 31, 2011, the weighted average yield on the Company’s investment portfolio was 3.16% and its weighted average cost of funds was 0.91%. This resulted in a net interest margin of 2.25% as of December 31, 2011. (6)
The CPR for the Agency RMBS portfolio was 5.0% for the fourth quarter and 5.0% for the month of December 2011. (5)
The weighted average cost basis of the Agency investment portfolio, excluding interest-only securities, was 103.5% as of December 31, 2011. The amortization of premiums (net of any accretion of discounts) on Agency securities for the fourth quarter was $1.9 million, or $(0.19) per share. The unamortized net Agency premium as of December 31, 2011 was $42.0 million.
Premiums and discounts associated with purchases of the Company’s securities are amortized or accreted into interest income over the estimated life of such securities, using the effective yield method. Since the cost basis of the Company’s Agency securities, excluding interest-only securities, exceeds the underlying principal balance by 3.5% as of December 31, 2011, slower actual and projected prepayments can have a meaningful positive impact, while faster actual or projected prepayments can have a meaningful negative impact on the Company’s asset yields.
We have also entered into “to-be-announced” (“TBA”) positions to facilitate the future purchase of Agency RMBS. Under the terms of these TBAs, the Company agrees to purchase, for future delivery, Agency RMBS with certain principal and interest specifications and certain types of underlying collateral, but the particular Agency RMBS to be delivered are not identified until shortly before (generally two days) the TBA settlement date. At December 31, 2011, we had $100 million net notional amount of TBA positions with a net weighted average purchase price of 103.8%. As of December 31, 2011, our TBA portfolio had a net weighted average yield at purchase of 3.01% and a net weighted average settlement date of February 5, 2012. We have recorded derivative assets of $1.4 million and derivative liabilities of $0.5 million, reflecting these TBA positions.
LEVERAGE AND HEDGING ACTIVITIES
The investment portfolio is financed with repurchase agreements as of December 31, 2011 as summarized below:

		Agency RMBS						Non-Agency RMBS / CMBS / Other
Repurchase Agreements Maturing Within:		Balance			Weighted Average Rate			Balance			Weighted Average Rate
30 days or less		$	652,002,000		0.35	%		$	68,187,000		1.74	%
31-60 days			334,825,407		0.42	%			1,749,000		1.95	%
61-90 days			118,340,000		0.37	%			14,200,000		1.80	%
Greater than 90 days			-		-				-		-
Total / Weighted Average		$	1,105,167,407		0.37	%		$	84,136,000		1.75	%

As of December 31, 2011, the Company had entered into repurchase agreements with twenty-one counterparties. We continue to rebalance our exposures to counterparties and add new counterparties.
We have entered into interest rate swap agreements to hedge our portfolio. The Company’s swaps as of December 31, 2011 are summarized as follows:

Maturity		Notional Amount			Weighted Average Pay Rate			Weighted Average Receive Rate*			Weighted Average Years to Maturity
2012		$	100,000,000		0.354	%		0.285	%		0.14
2013			182,000,000		0.535	%		0.286	%		1.78
2014			204,500,000		1.000	%		0.395	%		2.54
2015			184,025,000		1.412	%		0.380	%		3.56
2016			87,500,000		1.625	%		0.328	%		4.63
2018			35,000,000		1.728	%		0.511	%		6.88
Total/Wtd Avg		$	793,025,000		1.008	%		0.350	%		2.72
* Approximately 50% of our interest rate swap notionals reset monthly based on one-month LIBOR and 50% of our interest rate swap notionals reset quarterly based on three-month LIBOR.

TAXABLE INCOME
The primary differences between taxable income and GAAP net income include (i) unrealized gains and losses associated with investment and derivative portfolios are marked-to-market in current income for GAAP purposes, but excluded from taxable income until realized or settled, (ii) temporary differences related to amortization of net premiums paid on investments (iii) the timing and amount of deductions related to stock-based compensation and (iv) excise taxes. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had undistributed taxable income of approximately $0.46 per share.
DIVIDEND
On December 14, 2011, the Company declared a dividend of $0.70 per share of common stock to stockholders of record as of December 30, 2011 and paid such dividend on January 27, 2012. The Company declared dividends of $1.10 per share for the period ended December 31, 2011.
SUBSEQUENT EVENT
On January 24, 2012, the Company completed a follow-on offering of 5,000,000 shares of its common stock and subsequently issued an additional 750,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the underwriters’ over-allotments at a price of $19.00 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately $109.3 million. Net proceeds to the Company from the offerings were approximately $104.1 million, net of issuance costs of approximately $5.2 million.
SHAREHOLDER CALL
The Company invites shareholders, prospective shareholders and analysts to attend MITT’s fourth quarter earnings conference call on March 1, 2012 at 11:00 am Eastern Time. The shareholder call can be accessed by dialing (888) 424-8151 (U.S. domestic) or (847) 585-4422 (international). Please enter code number 8732511#.
A presentation will accompany the conference call and will be available on the Company’s website at www.agmit.com. Select the Q4 2011 Earnings Presentation link to download and print the presentation in advance of the shareholder call.
An audio replay of the shareholder call combined with the presentation will be made available on our website after the call. The replay will be available until midnight on March 15, 2012. If you are interested in hearing the replay, please dial (888) 843-7419 (U.S. domestic) or (630) 652-3042 (international). The conference ID number is 8732511#.
For further information or questions, please contact Allan Krinsman, the Company’s General Counsel, at (212) 883-4180 or akrinsman@angelogordon.com.
ABOUT AG MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that invests in, acquires and manages a diversified portfolio of residential mortgage assets, other real estate-related securities and financial assets. AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. is externally managed and advised by AG REIT Management, LLC, a subsidiary of Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P., an SEC-registered investment adviser that specializes in alternative investment activities.
Additional information can be found on the Company’s website at www.agmit.com.
ABOUT ANGELO, GORDON & CO.
Angelo, Gordon & Co. was founded in 1988 and has approximately $22 billion under management. Currently, the firm’s investment disciplines encompass five principal areas: (i) distressed debt and leveraged loans, (ii) real estate, (iii) mortgage-backed securities and other structured credit, (iv) private equity and special situations and (v) a number of hedge fund strategies. Angelo, Gordon & Co. employs over 250 employees, including more than 90 investment professionals, and is headquartered in New York, with associated offices in Amsterdam, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Hong Kong Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney and Tokyo.
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions of management of the Company at the time of such statements and are not guarantees of future performance. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties in predicting future results and conditions. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation, changes in interest rates, changes in the yield curve, changes in prepayment rates, the availability and terms of financing, changes in the market value of our assets, general economic conditions, market conditions, conditions in the market for Agency securities, and legislative and regulatory changes that could adversely affect the business of the Company. Additional information concerning these and other risk factors are contained in the Company’s most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Copies are available on the SEC’s website, http://www.sec.gov/. The Company does not undertake or accept any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in its expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Balance Sheets
			December 31, 2011			April 1, 2011
Assets			(Unaudited)
Real Estate securities, at fair value
Agency – $1,186,149,842 pledged as collateral			$	1,263,214,099		$	-
Non-Agency – $47,227,005 pledged as collateral				58,787,051			-
CMBS – $2,747,080 pledged as collateral				13,537,851			-
ABS – $4,526,620 pledged as collateral				4,526,620			-
Linked transactions, net, at fair value				8,787,180			-
Cash and cash equivalents				35,851,249			1,000
Restricted cash				3,037,055			-
Interest receivable				4,219,640			-
Derivative assets, at fair value				1,428,595			-
Prepaid expenses				317,950			-
Due from broker				341,491
Due from affiliates				104,994			-
Deferred costs				52,176			-
Total Assets			$	1,394,205,951		$	1,000
Liabilities
Repurchase agreements			$	1,150,149,407		$	-
Payable on unsettled trades				18,759,200			-
Interest payable				2,275,138			-
Derivative liabilities, at fair value				7,908,308			-
Dividend payable				7,011,171			-
Due to affiliates				770,341			-
Accrued expenses				668,552			-
Due to broker				379,914			-
Total Liabilities				1,187,922,031			-
Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share; 450,000,000 and 1,000 shares of common stock authorized and 10,009,958 and 100 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2011 and April 1, 2011, respectively				100,100			1
Additional paid-in capital				198,228,694			999
Retained earnings				7,955,126			-
				206,283,920			1,000
Total Liabilities & Equity			$	1,394,205,951		$	1,000

AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(Unaudited)
							Period from
			Quarter Ended				March 7, 2011 to
			December 31, 2011				December 31, 2011
Net Interest Income
Interest income			$	10,022,275			$	18,748,669
Interest expense				1,106,097				1,696,344
				8,916,178				17,052,325
Other Income (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss)				(589,747	)			3,701,392
Gain (loss) on linked transactions, net				(1,013,291	)			(808,564	)
Realized loss on periodic interest settlements of interest rate swaps, net				(1,175,788	)			(2,162,290	)
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments, net				70,663				(6,491,430	)
Unrealized gain (loss) on real estate securities				1,346,237				11,040,692
				(1,361,926	)			5,279,800
Expenses
Management fee to affiliate				770,341				1,512,898
Other operating expenses				811,372				1,566,642
Equity based compensation to affiliate				97,343				176,165
Excise tax				105,724				105,724
				1,784,780				3,361,429
Net Income (Loss)			$	5,769,472			$	18,970,696
Earnings Per Share of Common Stock
Basic			$	0.58			$	3.20
Diluted			$	0.58			$	3.20
Weighted Average Number of Shares of Common Stock Outstanding
Basic				10,009,958				5,933,930
Diluted				10,010,799				5,933,930
Dividends Declared per Share of Common Stock			$	0.70			$	1.10

Non-GAAP Financial Measure
This press release contains Core Earnings, a non-GAAP financial measure. AG Mortgage Investment Trust’s management believes that this non-GAAP measure, when considered with GAAP, provides supplemental information useful in evaluating the results of the Company’s operations. This non-GAAP measure should not be considered a substitute, or superior to, the financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Our GAAP financial results and the reconciliations from these results should be carefully evaluated.
Core Earnings are defined by the Company as net income excluding both realized and unrealized gains (losses) on the sale or termination of securities, including underlying linked transactions and derivatives. As defined, Core Earnings include the net interest earned on these transactions, including credit derivatives, linked transactions, inverse Agency securities, interest rate derivatives or any other investment activity that may earn net interest. One of the objectives of the Company is to generate net income from net interest margin on the portfolio and management uses Core Earnings to measure this objective.
A reconciliation of GAAP net income to Core Earnings for the quarter and period ended December 31, 2011 is set forth below:

						Period from
		Quarter Ended				March 7, 2011 to
		December 31, 2011				December 31, 2011
Net income/loss		$	5,769,472			$	18,970,696
Add (Deduct):
Net realized gain			589,747				(3,701,392	)
Gain/loss on linked transactions, net			1,013,291				808,564
Net interest income on linked transactions			554,729				900,638
Unrealized gain/loss on derivative instruments, net			(70,663	)			6,491,430
Unrealized gain/loss on real estate securities			(1,346,237	)			(11,040,692	)
Core Earnings		$	6,510,339			$	12,429,244

Footnotes
(1) Per share figures are calculated using outstanding shares including all shares granted to our Manager and our independent directors under our equity incentive plans as of quarter end.
(2) Generally when we purchase a security and finance it with a repurchase agreement, the security is included in our assets and the repurchase agreement is separately reflected in our liabilities on our balance sheet. For securities with certain characteristics (including those which are not readily obtainable in the market place) that are purchased and then simultaneously sold back to the seller under a repurchase agreement, US GAAP requires these transactions be netted together and recorded as a forward purchase commitment. Throughout this press release where we disclose our investment portfolio and the repurchase agreements that finance it, including our leverage metrics, we have un-linked the transaction and used the gross presentation as used for all other securities. This presentation is consistent with how the Company’s management evaluates the business, and believes provides the most accurate depiction of the Company’s investment portfolio and financial condition.
(3) Calculated by dividing total repurchase agreements, including $39.2 million included in linked transactions, plus payable on unsettled trades on our GAAP balance sheet by our GAAP stockholders’ equity.
(4) The total investment portfolio is calculated by summing the fair market value of our Agency RMBS, Non-Agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS assets, including linked transactions. The percentage of Agency RMBS and credit investments are calculated by dividing the respective fair market value of each, including linked transactions, by the total investment portfolio.
(5) This represents the weighted average monthly CPRs published during the period for our in-place portfolio during the same period.
(6) Net interest margin is calculated by subtracting the weighted average cost of funds from the weighted average yield for the Company’s investment portfolio, which excludes cash held by the Company. See footnotes (9) and (10) for further detail.
(7) Diluted per share figures are calculated using weighted average outstanding shares in accordance with GAAP. For the period from March 7, 2011 to December 31, 2011, the calculation reflected the impact of 100 shares outstanding from July 1, 2011 through the settlement date of our IPO.
(8) The swap ratio was calculated by dividing the notional value of our interest rate swaps by total repurchase agreements, including those included in linked transactions, plus payable on unsettled trades.
(9) The yield on our investment portfolio during the period represents an effective interest rate, which utilizes all estimates of future cash flows and adjusts for actual prepayment and cash flow activity as of quarter end. This calculation excludes cash held by the Company.
(10) The cost of funds was calculated as the sum of the weighted average rate on the repurchase agreements outstanding at quarter end and the weighted average net pay rate on our interest rate swaps. Both elements of the cost of funds were weighted by the repurchase agreements outstanding at quarter end.
(11) The management fee percentage at quarter end was calculated by annualizing management fees incurred during the quarter and dividing by quarter-ended stockholders’ equity.
(12) The other operating expenses percentage at quarter end was calculated by annualizing other operating expenses recorded during the quarter and dividing by quarter-ended stockholders’ equity.
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Banks to grab share of ECB’s €500bn loans

The European Central Bank is set to flood banking markets with €500bn (£424bn) of cheap loans this week, taking its financial support of the European Union to €1trn in just three months.

On Wednesday, the ECB will hold its second allotment of three-year loans to private banks and other institutions, known as the longer-term refinancing operations (LTRO). Analysts are expecting banks to apply for between €200bn and €750bn in total, with most forecasts around the €500bn mark.
In December, 523 banks borrowed €489bn from the first LTRO. The loans carried an interest rate of around 1 per cent a year. The new loans will be just as cheap, but the collateral requirements have been loosened. Banks will be able to pledge corporate and consumer loans, rather than just government bonds, in return for the borrowing.
The new LTRO will be conducted through national central banks, not the ECB, so governments will take the losses should their banks be unable to repay the loans.
The first unprecedented provision of liquidity has been credited by the ECB president, Mario Draghi, with helping Europe to avoid a banking crisis this year. Some banks had found it increasingly difficult to borrow in the second half of last year. These institutions used the ECB’s cheap funds to meet their liabilities.
The liquidity injection also seems to have helped bring down the borrowing costs of some distressed eurozone states, as banks, particularly in Spain and Italy, have used the money to invest in bonds issued by their governments. Italian 10-year yields have come down from above 7 per cent to 5.5 per cent. Spanish 10-year yields have fallen from 5.7 to 5 per cent.
Sony Kapoor of the Re-Define think tank said: “The bigger the LTRO next week, the more the short-term relief for the banking sector, but at the cost of making a sustainable exit from life-support even harder.”
Jens Larsen of RBC Capital Markets, argued that the LTRO would be beneficial as long as banks restructure. “If the euro banks spend the time wisely by reducing their balance sheets and raising the necessary capital that’s not so bad,” he said. “But if they’re not doing that, it’s dangerous.”

http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

A lesson on student loans

A lesson on student loans
Student Financial Education Services presents students with advice for dealing with loans.

by STUDENT FINANCIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

This article originally appeared in The Tiger on February 24, 2012 | PRINT

Understanding Your Student Loans
The majority of college students have them: student loans. Student loans have increased in popularity in recent years, mostly due to the increasing tuition rates seen across the country. As you near the end of your tenure here at Clemson, there are a few things to keep in mind that will better prepare you to deal with your student loans.
Where do I find my loans?
If you are like many students, you remember receiving the many pieces of mail over the past four years detailing your loans, but now you cannot seem to find the information. You most likely know your loans by the types of loans they are, like Stafford Loan, Perkins Loan and others. These loans are not all made by one company, but are sold off and serviced by a wide variety.
There is an easy-to-use resource to help locate all of your student loans and who they are owned or serviced by. The website to help you locate your student loans is http://www.nslds.ed.gov/nslds_SA/.
If you have private loans, such as those often made by banks or financial companies such as Discover, Citi, Bank of America or others, you may need to contact that financial institution directly, as their information is sometimes not located in the online database.
How do I pay my loans?
Once you graduate, you should be proactive about finding out when you need to start paying your student loans back.
Graduating from college can be a hectic time, and with all the address changes that you may be going through, it’s easy for mail to get misplaced or sent to the wrong address. It is the responsibility of the borrower, which would be you, to make contact with the owner or servicer of your loan(s) in order to find out when payments begin.
The owner or servicer of your loan will most likely offer you several options for repaying your loans, although not all companies offer these options, and some companies may offer more options. Here are a few basic options:
Standard Repayment: Think of this payment option as a standard loan, you make fixed payments that do not change from month to month for the standard repayment period (which is typically 10 years).
Extended Repayment: This payment option is similar to the standard payment option, except the payment period (which is the time it takes to pay back the loan) will be longer than the standard period. This type of repayment plan may be beneficial to those who have extremely large amounts of student loans and cannot afford the monthly payment under the standard repayment plan.
Graduated Repayment: A graduated repayment plan offers the advantage of allowing you to make lower monthly payments right when you get out of school with the monthly payment increasing every set period of time (such as every two or three years). This type of repayment plan is based on the ideal that your income will increase over time.
Income Dependent Repayment: This payment plan is available in certain government loan situations and allows the borrower to pay a certain percentage of their income toward the loan until the loan is paid off or until a time limit of 25 years is reached. If the time limit of 25 years is reached, the government will forgive the remaining balance on the debt, although tax implications may apply.
Although these are just a few of the standard payment options, it is important to keep your current situation in mind when determining which payment plan is right for you. It is also important to think of the payment plan in terms of which will cost you the most in interest, as opposed to those repayment plans that will accrue the least amount of interest. Students are responsible for verifying the information in this article prior to making financial decisions.
If you would like additional information on student loan payment plans or help understanding your student loan situation, please visit the Student Financial Education Office located in The Union, Office 805. You can set up an appointment by emailing us at sfes1@clemson.edu or calling us at (864) 656-7337.
Views: 32
View the discussion thread.
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Aircraft unit misses take-off nod

Patna. Feb. 23: The State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB), which held its meeting today after a gap of almost five months, cleared all 116 proposals, except about half-a-dozen that have been put on hold.
Among the proposals that were set aside for the time being included one that talked about setting up of an aircraft manufacturing unit in the state.
Beltronics Techno Pvt Ltd, Patna, had come up with an investment proposal to set up a manufacturing unit of aeroplane and air taxi, besides carrying out maintenance work of aircraft in the vicinity of the state capital.
The company, which claimed that it has already entered into a tie-up with a UK-based firm for financing the project, said it would pump in Rs 92,000 crore for the purpose.
“We have asked them (the company) to give a presentation before the board. We want to see their project details. We would like to know what it wants to do and how it plans to go about? We also want to know what are the land and other requirements of the entrepreneur?” principal secretary (industries) C.K. Mishra told The Telegraph.
SIPB was set up by the Nitish Kumar-led NDA government after assuming power in November 2005 with an aim to promote private investment in the state.
The board has, so far, approved 603 project proposals, which entail an investment of Rs 2.48 lakh crore with a capacity to generate 1.85 lakh jobs.
Sources said if the aircraft manufacturing unit gets the board’s approval, the chances of which are very bleak, it would bring Rs 92,000 crore in investment alone to the state.
In the wake of entrepreneurs, especially Aditya Birla Group chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla who made a fervent appeal to the government at the just concluded “Global Bihar Summit” for speedy approval of the project, the SIPB decided to hold regular meetings in order to avoid delay in giving approvals to proposals.
Bihar Industries Association (BIA) president KPS Keshri, who is also a member of the SIPB, told The Telegraph: “SIPB meeting would now be held twice a month. The aim is to ensure that the proposed projects do not get delayed in getting the board’s approval.”
He added, “It was also decided that those entrepreneurs, who could not apply to the SIPB, would be given a chance to apply to the board.”
According to the industrial incentive policy of 2011, projects having SIPB’s approval would get incentives.
Since there was no fixed time-frame for holding the meeting of the board for approving the investment projects, it led to accumulation of a long list (116) of investment proposals requiring the board’s approval.
The last time a meeting of the board was held was in the last week of September last year
Any fresh investment proposal, once cleared by the SIPB, of up to Rs 100 crore investment would be put up before chief minister Nitsih Kumar for his approval, whereas proposals of over Rs 100 crore would be sent to the cabinet for the necessary approval.
The proposals, which got the board’s approval included investments from sectors like food processing, power, cold storage, flour mills, rice mills, beer factories and others.
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Aircraft unit misses take-off nod

Patna. Feb. 23: The State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB), which held its meeting today after a gap of almost five months, cleared all 116 proposals, except about half-a-dozen that have been put on hold.
Among the proposals that were set aside for the time being included one that talked about setting up of an aircraft manufacturing unit in the state.
Beltronics Techno Pvt Ltd, Patna, had come up with an investment proposal to set up a manufacturing unit of aeroplane and air taxi, besides carrying out maintenance work of aircraft in the vicinity of the state capital.
The company, which claimed that it has already entered into a tie-up with a UK-based firm for financing the project, said it would pump in Rs 92,000 crore for the purpose.
“We have asked them (the company) to give a presentation before the board. We want to see their project details. We would like to know what it wants to do and how it plans to go about? We also want to know what are the land and other requirements of the entrepreneur?” principal secretary (industries) C.K. Mishra told The Telegraph.
SIPB was set up by the Nitish Kumar-led NDA government after assuming power in November 2005 with an aim to promote private investment in the state.
The board has, so far, approved 603 project proposals, which entail an investment of Rs 2.48 lakh crore with a capacity to generate 1.85 lakh jobs.
Sources said if the aircraft manufacturing unit gets the board’s approval, the chances of which are very bleak, it would bring Rs 92,000 crore in investment alone to the state.
In the wake of entrepreneurs, especially Aditya Birla Group chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla who made a fervent appeal to the government at the just concluded “Global Bihar Summit” for speedy approval of the project, the SIPB decided to hold regular meetings in order to avoid delay in giving approvals to proposals.
Bihar Industries Association (BIA) president KPS Keshri, who is also a member of the SIPB, told The Telegraph: “SIPB meeting would now be held twice a month. The aim is to ensure that the proposed projects do not get delayed in getting the board’s approval.”
He added, “It was also decided that those entrepreneurs, who could not apply to the SIPB, would be given a chance to apply to the board.”
According to the industrial incentive policy of 2011, projects having SIPB’s approval would get incentives.
Since there was no fixed time-frame for holding the meeting of the board for approving the investment projects, it led to accumulation of a long list (116) of investment proposals requiring the board’s approval.
The last time a meeting of the board was held was in the last week of September last year
Any fresh investment proposal, once cleared by the SIPB, of up to Rs 100 crore investment would be put up before chief minister Nitsih Kumar for his approval, whereas proposals of over Rs 100 crore would be sent to the cabinet for the necessary approval.
The proposals, which got the board’s approval included investments from sectors like food processing, power, cold storage, flour mills, rice mills, beer factories and others.
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Witness says IRS didn't oppose Stanford loans

The Internal Revenue Service knew R. Allen Stanford was taking loans from his Antigua bank and found nothing wrong with the arrangement, the Texas tycoon’s tax lawyer testified at Stanford’s fraud trial Tuesday.
“The IRS always treated those as loans to Mr. Stanford,” said Larry Campagna, who represented Stanford in personal and business tax disputes with the IRS in 1998 and again in 2003.
The IRS did change its position, however, about the correct way to characterize payments from Stanford to his Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, the parent company of Stanford’s scores of business operations. He was sole owner of Stanford Financial and its subsidiaries.
Although the tax agency ruled that those should be listed as loans on 1998 tax returns, it said the payments should be recorded on 2001 and 2002 returns as dividend payments to Stanford, Campagna said.
Defense attorney Robert Scardino asked Campagna if anything about the returns prompted the IRS to ask criminal investigators to initiate a fraud probe.
“No,” Campagna said before he was dismissed from the witness stand.
Stanford, a native of Mexia, is accused of leading a fraud that prosecutors allege took $7 billion from clients who bought certificates of deposit in Stanford’s bank in Antigua. They were led to believe their money was invested conservatively, according to prosecution testimony, while much of it really went to personal loans to Stanford for his pet business projects and luxurious life.
Two other defense witnesses testified Monday. However, U.S. District Judge David Hittner decided Stanford’s coughing from an apparent cold needed medical attention and stopped the trial early.
Osvaldo Pi, an accountant who went to work in 2001 for Stanford Venture Capital, spent much of his time on the stand explaining venture capital, private equity and other financial terms to jurors.
Private equity firms often seek investments, on their own behalf or for well-heeled clients, in ventures that aren’t publicly traded and seek to raise capital by selling ownership shares. Private equity firms also may arrange buyout deals that take public companies private.
Pi said his job included identifying investment opportunities for Stanford Venture Capital, and that it raised millions of dollars for companies Pi and others vetted for risk and potential.
In the trial’s fifth week, the defense is attempting to show that Stanford was interested in legitimate investments, that he was consolidating his companies to make them more manageable and that the companies would have remained solvent if the U.S. government hadn’t filed a fraud suit and shut them down in February 2009.
Pi testified that the receiver who took over the assets of Stanford Financial Group and its subsidiaries didn’t seem interested in pursuing investments that remained viable, but in liquidating the companies’ assets. He said he stayed with the firm for seven months after it went into receivership.
Karen Pittman, a librarian for Andrew College, a private junior college in Georgia, testified that Stanford hired her to research whether he was related to Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University in California. Stanford touted the relationship in his promotional brochures although university officials deny any kinship.
Pittman said she found a common relative, but after two years of research could not say for sure that Leland Stanford and Allen Stanford were related.
Defense witnesses have portrayed Stanford as the company visionary who left details to others – notably Chief Financial Officer James Davis. Davis pleaded guilty to three felony charges and testified that he and Stanford knowingly misled investors and misused their money.
Stanford and others were indicted in June 2009. He has been held without bail as a possible flight risk since his arrest that month.
Three other Stanford executives indicted separately and scheduled for trial later are free on bail, and an Antiguan regulator accused of taking bribes is fighting extradition from that Caribbean nation. Davis was charged separately in connection with his guilty plea and is cooperating with the government.
terri.langford@chron.com
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Tangled in diplomacy, EU struggles to frame new financial rules

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – When it takes six hours to draft a single sentence in a 100-page document, you know things are moving slowly.
In meeting rooms of embassies across Brussels, diplomats are haggling over the finer details of dozens of reforms more than four years after the financial crisis that devastated European banks and triggered the euro zone’s struggle with debt.
While the United States agreed in 2010 an initial framework to prevent financiers taking the kind of risks that sparked the deepest global recession since the 1930s, the European Union‘s response is often tangled in backroom diplomacy.
“Bailout is a naughty word these days but we haven’t created a system to deal with failing banks without one,” said a diplomat from a northern European country who is working on around 15 different EU dossiers to regulate finance. “We are still spending hours arguing over the wording of a sentence.”
The crisis revealed how regulators and even top bank executives on both sides of the Atlantic failed to grasp the risks in the complex financial architecture they helped build.
But agreeing new laws among the bloc’s 27 member countries and the European Parliament is becoming so burdensome that diplomats worry Europe‘s defenses will not be in place should a new crisis hit.
German lender IKB was the first casualty of the financial crash in mid-2007, imploding after pursuing what one banker described as an “all you can eat” strategy, snapping up U.S. subprime mortgage debt.
By the time the worst of the crisis was over in Europe, more than 50 lenders had to be rescued by their governments.
The EU responded with rules governing hedge funds and banker pay. But it has yet to outline a framework law for dealing with banks threatened with collapse, a reform many analysts believe is central in ensuring that bank bondholders – and not the taxpayer – pay to rescue banks in future.
The delicate state of Europe’s banks, which have been faced with the possibility of a chaotic Greek debt default, is partly to blame.
Banks still have trillions of euros of risky loans on their books, and it has taken the near-unlimited offer of funds from the European Central Bank to prevent another credit freeze.
LEEWAY OR LIMIT?
Michel Barnier, the former French foreign minister given the task of leading an overhaul of EU financial regulation two years ago, is due to present his bank salvage plan sometime this year.
But even when he does, the proposed legislation could take three years to become law.
“We can’t afford any more delays,” Olle Schmidt, a liberal who is leading financial reform efforts in the European parliament. “If Europe is to be able to react swiftly to another crisis, these defenses must be in place.”
Diplomats have also clashed over proposed rules governing the amount of capital banks must keep in reserve to cover the risks of lending. This is crucial in preventing another credit boom of the kind that led to the financial crash.
Britain wants more leeway to impose stricter standards on capital than the EU, while France wants the limit capped, reflecting the different way the crisis affected the two neighboring countries.
“The French banking system did OK, albeit with public support, whereas British banks took some serious hits,” said Sony Kapoor, founder of think tank Re-Define.
Overhauling banking is just one of the dossiers keeping diplomats up late at night in the glass and steel buildings of Brussels’s European quarter – working in tandem with colleagues in their home capitals.
While EU leaders have held 17 summits over the past two years to resolve the sovereign debt debacle, diplomats are sifting their way through proposals for regulating derivatives, trading, insider dealing, credit rating agencies and banker pay.
And with most working groups held in English, non-native speakers often struggle to grasp the highly technical issues.
One official recalled an embarrassing misunderstanding, when an ambassador appeared to describe a discussion on hedge funds as being “like a short shit in a long bath.” Participants later concluded he meant “a short sheet on a long bed.”
“Sometimes you understand the words but you don’t understand the meaning,” said one eastern European diplomat.
The final legal text is often as mystifying as the process that created it. “They are unreadable,” said Eddy Wymeersch, a former regulator, commenting on hedge fund rules. “It is just page after page of legalese.”
Bruce Stokes, an analyst with think tank the German Marshall Fund, believes Washington works faster because directly elected members of Congress and not bureaucrats draft legislation. “Brussels is not that accountable,” he said.
Washington drew up the Dodd-Frank act in 2010, a framework for financial reform that includes sweeping changes including bans on banks trading on their own account.
Fleshing out the full detail of these rules will, however, require further work and the European Commission points to its success in moving earlier on banker pay and bank capital.
In Europe, much of the responsibility for rewriting the rulebook for finance falls to the Commission, proposing and writing the first draft of laws that are then sent to European countries and the bloc’s parliament for approval.
“The European legislative system is designed far more for incremental adjustment than for major reform,” said Nicolas Veron, an expert in financial policy who works in both Washington and Brussels. “It’s more bureaucratically driven, but that doesn’t mean that the outcome is not political.”
With things moving so slowly, those working on the dossiers say the new regulations are in danger of being overtaken by events.
“I’ll be retired by the time all of this is done,” said one banker, whose job it is to predict the direction of legislation. “It’s not the kind of work I’d recommend.”
(Writing by Robin Emmott; additional reporting by Claire Davenport, editing by Mike Peacock)

http://tourism9.com    http://vkins.com

Decision day for 2nd Greek bailout despite financing gaps

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Euro zone finance ministers are expected to approve a second bailout for Greece on Monday to try to draw a line under months of uncertainty that has shaken the currency bloc, although there is work to be done to make the figures add up.
Diplomats and economists say they do not expect the package to resolve Greece’s economic problems. That could take a decade or more, a bleak prospect that brought thousands of Greeks onto the streets to protest austerity measures again on Sunday.
The ministers need to agree new measures to square the numbers, given the ever-worsening state of the Greek economy. But they say an agreement on Monday will help restructure the country’s vast debts, put it on a more stable financial footing and keep it inside the 17-country single currency zone.
Senior officials from euro zone finance ministries and the European Central Bank held a conference call on Sunday to go over the final details of the 130-billion-euro programme, including a debt sustainability analysis critical to the International Monetary Fund.
While there is scepticism in Germany and other countries that Greece will be able to live up to its commitments – including implementing 3.3 billion euros of spending cuts and tax increases – officials said momentum was building for approval of the deal.
French Finance Minister Francois Baroin said all the elements were in place to reach an agreement.
“It cannot wait any longer … Greece has debt payments in March and could find itself in bankruptcy, something which France has been trying to avoid for the last 18 months,” he told Europe 1 radio on Monday.
Finnish Finance Minister Jutta Urpilainen said Greece had done all that had been asked of it.
“There are many open details … A big issue is that we have to get Greece’s debt on a level that is sustainable and enables Greece to survive,” she told reporters in Helsinki.
A euro zone official in contact with junior ministers involved in the Sunday conference call said the financing gaps were not so large that they risked derailing the whole process.
“I don’t see anybody wanting to be responsible for pulling the plug on the deal at this late stage,” he said.
“The gut feeling is that this is going to go through – everyone feels the pressure this time to deliver,” he said, indicating that the Netherlands, Finland and Germany, which have been the most critical of Athens‘ ability to commit, looked likely to come on board if the financing gaps could be closed.
GREEK ANGER UNABATED
Several thousand Greeks demonstrated on Sunday against the austerity measures to reduce the country’s debt, although the numbers were much lower than earlier protests.
Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos flew to Brussels for last-minute preparations as about 3,000 demonstrators massed on the capital’s central Syntagma square.
Riot police shielded the national assembly to prevent a repeat of riots a week ago when masked youths torched buildings and looted shops across Athens.
Under one crucial element of the deal, Greece will have around 100 billion euros of debt written off via a restructuring involving private-sector holders of Greek government bonds.
Banks and insurers will swap bonds they hold for longer-dated securities that pay a lower coupon, resulting in a real 70 percent reduction in the value of the assets.
The bond exchange is expected to launch on March 8 and complete three days later, Athens said on Saturday. That means a 14.5-billion-euro bond repayment due on March 20 would be restructured, allowing Greece to avoid default.
The vast majority of the funds in the 130-billion-euro programme will be used to finance the bond swap and to ensure that Greece’s banking system remains stable: 30 billion euros will go to “sweeteners” to get the private sector to sign up to the swap, 23 billion will go to recapitalise Greek banks.
A further 35 billion will allow Greece to finance the buying back of the bonds, and 5.7 billion will go to paying off the interest accrued on the bonds being traded in.
The overall objective is to reduce Greece’s debts from 160 percent of GDP to around 120 percent by 2020 – the figure and timeframe that the IMF, ECB and the European Commission, together known as the troika, have established as sustainable.
MEETING THE TARGET
The focus of Monday’s finance ministers‘ meeting will be what “around 120 percent” means in practice.
A debt sustainability report delivered to euro zone finance ministers last week showed that under the main scenario, Greek debt will only fall to 129 percent by 2020.
The IMF has said if the ratio cannot be cut to around 120 percent, it may not be able to help finance the Greek programme.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner urged the International Monetary Fund to support the programme.
“This is a very strong and very difficult package of reforms, deserving of support of the international community and the IMF,” Geithner said in a statement on Sunday.
As well as working to get the number down, there are moves to convince members of the troika that a debt level of 123-125 percent in 2020 would be sustainable.
“If we can get it down to 123 or 124 percent, I think everyone’s going to be okay with that,” the euro zone official said after the Sunday conference call. “Everyone will find a way to tweak the numbers.”
A number of measures, including restructuring the accrued interest portion or reducing the “sweeteners,” are being considered to move the figure closer to 120, a euro zone official familiar with the negotiations said.
There are also discussions about marginally lowering the interest rate on 110 billion euros of bilateral loans already made to Greece in May 2010 – the first package of support – to lighten the financing burden on Athens.
Central banks could help too.
The ECB is weighing up whether to allow Greek bonds held in euro zone central banks’ investment portfolios to be subject to the same writedowns private investors are set to take, central bank sources told Reuters on Friday.
The central banks hold around 20 billion euros of Greek bonds in their traditional investment portfolios and the ECB holds about double that amount from its emergency bond-buying programme. It has also signalled it could forego the profits made on the latter at some point.
If the finance ministers do succeed in reaching an agreement, it will provide immediate relief to Athens and financial markets, which have been kept guessing since the bailout package was announced last October.
But no one is pretending it will end Greece’s problems. Figures last week showed its economy shrank 7 percent year-on-year in the last quarter of 2011, much more than expected, with further cuts likely to make matters worse.
The troika, responsible for monitoring Greece’s reform progress, carries out quarterly reviews, while the European Commission will soon have dozens more monitors on the ground.
Already there is concern that at any one of those reviews of the new programme – if it is approved on Monday – Greece will be found to be behind, especially if GDP continues to slump.
That will again raise the threat the country will have to default if it cannot meet its obligations, and invite questions about its ability to remain in the euro zone.
(Additional reporting by Daniel Flynn in Paris, Terri Kinnunen in Helsinki and George Georgiopoulos in Athens; writing by Mike Peacock; editing by Elizabeth Piper)http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

UK Private Equity Sector Will Be Unhappy With Pre-Budget Report

08 December 2006

Private equity funds will have good reason to feel disappointed following the Chancellor’s failure to redress the unfair retrospective legislation which will attack their fund returns, claim business and financial advisers Grant Thornton.
As a result of restrictions on the deductibility of finance costs in investee companies from April 2007, funds will see a significant increase in tax costs which in many cases could not have been predicted when their investments were made.
Stephen Quest, head of tax transactions at Grant Thornton, comments: “The taxation of private equity funds has been in a state of flux for the last two years. The market needs stability to enable deals to be completed with a degree of certainty. Clarity in this area would have provided a boost to the private equity sector which has brought so much to the British
economy over the last year.”
In light of the unchanged conditions, says Grant Thornton, the major issues facing the private equity market remain the deductibility of interest, withholding tax, and the tax treatment of management teams.
For portfolio companies, the most draconian measure to impact funds is the retrospective application of the transfer pricing regulations to the financing of investee companies. From April 2007, amounts payable to private equity
funds in respect of finance deemed not to be available on an arm’s length basis may not qualify for a deduction for corporation tax relief. The effect on returns is significant and unfair; the new rules can increase the cost of finance by 3-5% for investee companies, despite the fact that at the time finance was put in place no such legislation existed.
Quest says: “We had hoped to see a Pre-Budget in which the Chancellor put this right. His failure to do so will result in private equity funds taking a hit in April. It also sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the basis upon which funds will make investment decisions in the future.”
As regards withholding tax, Grant Thornton says that significant uncertainty exists as to whether withholding tax needs to
operate on interest paid on many international fund structures. This needs to be clarified as soon as possible.
For management teams, the treatment of ratchets remains worrying. AlthoughiIn August 2006, HMRC provided welcome confirmation that the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA) safe harbour would apply to ‘ratchets’
where management teams acquire sweet equity, the Pre-Budget Report has failed to address the thorny issue of post-acquisition changes to ratchets which cause so much difficulty when private equity investments are re-financed.
Grant Thornton says that tax law remains unclear with regard to earn-outs. Quest remarks: “The tax law in this area is in a considerable mess with uncertainty as to whether future receipts are taxed on a current or deferred basis. There is urgent need for a reform in this area.”
Stephen Quest concludes, “Private equity has become a mainstream and permanent factor in capital markets and deserves a fiscal regime that is consistently applied and delivers certainty to the funds in assessing investment opportunities in the UK. It remains the case that there is significant uncertainty and this is disrupting the flow of funds into the UK market. We hope that there will be substantive changes in the next Budget and that the introduction of retrospective attack on pre-2005 investments is dropped.”
http://tourism9.cm/    http://vkins.com/

AP Enterprise: Brown bank regulator an insider

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
Gov. Jerry Brown’s appointee to head the department that oversees banking, financial and consumer regulations in California led a trade association that fought against tighter lending restrictions before the subprime mortgage crisis exploded and was an executive with Washington Mutual when the now-failed bank was among the most aggressive marketers of loans to high-risk borrowers.
Jan Owen, a Democrat, also is named in a congressional inquiry into whether lawmakers and certain executives received preferential treatment for home loans, although she was not accused of wrongdoing.
Consumer advocates said they are watching Owen’s decisions carefully to see how she performs in her role as commissioner of the California Department of Corporations. The Democratic governor appointed her in December to the $143,000-a-year position, and she started in January.
Owen, 59, of West Sacramento, has a long resume in California, including stints in both business and government, but it is her history with organizations that were at the heart of the mortgage meltdown that stands out in a state that has one of the highest home foreclosure rates in the nation.
Owen served as state director of government and industry affairs at Washington Mutual from 2002 until its collapse in 2008, one of the largest bank failures in American history. It was taken over by JP Morgan Chase, where Owen stayed on as vice president of government affairs until 2009.
“It is of concern if a person who takes a job there, at that pay level in particular, has such experience, particularly with the mortgage bankers association, JPMorgan and Washington Mutual,” said Rick Jacobs, president of the Courage Campaign, which advocates on behalf of policies for poor and working-class families.
“These are big institutions, some of which don’t even exist anymore because of what they did in the mortgage business, and what they did to California,” Jacobs said. “That should be watched very carefully.”
Owen declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press for this story, but a spokesman for the Department of Corporations, Mark Leyes, responded to questions by email and telephone. He said Owen’s professional background is an asset because she understands consumer issues.
“Understanding these industries and how they function- and fail – improves the ability to regulate effectively,” Leyes said in an email.
He said the department protects consumers by licensing and regulating the network of financial services and securities businesses, including brokers, dealers, investment advisers, financial planners and lenders. Because Owen “really understands how these complex industries operate, she knows what to look for and how to crack down,” Leyes said.
Officials with several consumer groups said they were hesitant to openly criticize Owen’s background because they will have to work with her in her new role. Lawmakers similarly were hesitant because Owen’s appointment still has to be approved in the Legislature. Although Owen’s appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate, she is allowed to work for up to one year before lawmakers decide.
Some consumer advocates who have worked with Owen in the past praised her, saying she was responsive to their concerns.
Orson Aguilar, executive director of the Greenlining Institute, a Berkeley-based national policy group that advocates for racial and economic justice, said he often found himself on the opposite side of the table from Owen on consumer protection and affordable housing issues when she was an executive at Washington Mutual.
“I think people would be surprised, but definitely she was somebody who was easy to work with and she got it. She just didn’t pay lip service, she tried her hardest” to help poor communities, he said.
Before joining Washington Mutual, Owen was executive director of the California Mortgage Bankers Association from 2000 to 2002, where she worked on behalf of lenders on regulatory issues that she now is in charge of enforcing.
Owen was among those who argued against a 2001 bill that attempted to control high-interest predatory lending several years before the collapse of the housing industry, which helped propel the state’s unemployment rate to more than 12 percent during the height of the recession.
SB60 by then-Sen. Joe Dunn, a Democrat, would have required lenders to assess whether potential recipients of high-interest, high-risk loans had the means to repay them and required the attorney general to document complaints against lenders.
The bill sought to end the “abusive practices imposed upon a captive market,” according to its text.
“These abusive tactics, known as `predatory lending’ practices, range from the charging of exorbitant fees and interest rates from those least likely to afford them, to aggressive sales of costly and unnecessary services, to outright fraud aimed at forcing foreclosures and allowing seizures of property,” the bill said.
That was 2001, long before most Americans had heard about the complex lending and financial instruments that contributed to the collapse of the housing market and billions of dollars in bank bailouts.
A report that year in American Banker, a trade magazine, notes that a hearing on the bill was canceled and said Owen’s office contacted the senator to try to “work with him” on it. A newsletter for bankers association members from 2001 quotes Owen as saying the legislation and other bills like it would turn lenders away from California, which would lead to complaints that low-income buyers and the elderly could not receive loans.
“There is a fine line between protecting consumers and making the process so cumbersome and risky that lenders will simply do business elsewhere,” she said in the newsletter.
Dunn’s bill died in committee that year.
The former senator, who is now executive director of the State Bar of California, did not return a call from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Leyes, of the Department of Corporations, said industry groups argued that the law duplicated existing federal regulations, although those did not cap interest rates or fees on loans. He noted that the association did not take an official public position on the bill.
“The industry wasn’t supportive of Dunn’s bill and similar efforts that year or in that time period. Jan was employed by the association, the CMBA, and she needed to represent their point of view,” he said.
Leyes said a similar bill by then-Sen. Carole Migden passed later. The Mortgage Bankers Association also lobbied against that bill.
The association also is listed as an opponent of the California Financial Privacy Act by then-Assemblyman Tim Leslie, which sought to prohibit financial companies from sharing customers’ data unless customers opted in. That legislation, AB21, died in a committee in 2002.
The California Reinvestment Coalition is one of many groups that lobbied in the early 2000s for tighter lending standards and more restrictions on high-interest loans. Its associate director, Kevin Stein, said he did not recall whether Owen spoke out publicly against the Dunn bill but said her resume raises some concerns about whether she will be an effective advocate for consumers.
Stein called Washington Mutual a “perfect example of what happens when regulators don’t regulate.”
“So she’s aware of that, and maybe there’s some appreciation that she might have for the role that regulations can and should play,” he said.
A spokesman for the governor, Gil Duran, said is uniquely qualified to lead the department.
“Jan Owen is a highly experienced and respected commissioner with a deep knowledge of California’s complex industries and regulations. Gov. Brown picks appointees based on their qualifications,” he said.
Owen’s name also is cited in two congressional investigations.
They include a 2009 inquiry into the collapse of Countrywide Financial Corp. as a potential “Friend of Angelo” – a reference to former Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo, who helped high-profile clients get discounted mortgages.
Once the country’s largest lender, Countrywide played a major role in the collapse of the housing market because it aggressively pushed complicated home loans to people with a questionable ability to repay.
An April 2003 email exchange cited as part of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation begins with an email message from Owen to Pete Mills, then-senior vice president of legislative and government regulatory affairs for Countrywide Home Loans.
“Don’t forget name and telephone number of the guy for refi for us,” Owen wrote.
Mills then emailed another Countrywide executive, asking him or “one of your top people,” to help Owen. In addition to noting her government affairs position at Washington Mutual, Mills refers in his email to Owen as “a good friend of Countrywide from her days as executive director at Calif. MBA.” A follow-up email urges another staffer to offer Owen a discount of half a percentage point on her loan and “no junk fees.”
Leyes said Owen does not remember ever receiving a refinancing offer from Countrywide, and public records reviewed by The Associated Press do not show her or her husband having any loans from the company for the two Sacramento-area homes they have owned.
The report concluded that Countrywide loan officers waived fees and knocked off points for VIP borrowers at no cost, saving them thousands of dollars in deals that were not available to regular applicants. It does not say whether Owen received a loan with preferential terms.
“She didn’t seek any preferential treatment even though she may have kind of innocuously asked into the terms that Countrywide provided for a refinance,” Leyes said. “What’s unfortunate is that that got included in that report back then and it didn’t get challenged or corrected at the time.”
Owen’s name also surfaced in a July 2010 House Ethics Committee investigation that cleared Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Long Beach, of wrongdoing in the foreclosure of her Sacramento home, an action that Washington Mutual later rescinded. Owen was among the bank officials who dealt with Richardson’s case.
Before she worked for the trade association and the banks, Owen was chief consultant to the Senate Banking Committee in the Legislature from 1992 to 1995, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Financial Institutions under former Gov. Gray Davis from 1996 to 1999 and acting commissioner from 1999 to 2000, when she left to head the bankers association
http://tourism9.com/    http://vkins.com/

Caixin Online: The basics of Chinese inbound investment deals

By Andrew Ross
BEIJING (
Caixin Online
) — An accelerating number of Chinese companies are engaging in acquisitions and joint ventures in the United States and while it’s generally understood that a large number of other Chinese companies are also considering doing so, many still hesitate.
The first point to note is that the rate of deals is increasing, and is doing so dramatically. A second point is that as a percentage of the total number of deals, small- to medium-size deals make up the majority, although there are a few larger ones, and the buyers are generally not SOEs (state-owned enterprises). Third, the industries of the acquired companies cover a broad range, from technology, apparel, consulting services, auto parts, hotels and many more.

 About Caixin
Caixin is a Beijing-based media group dedicated to providing high-quality
and authoritative financial and business news and information through
periodicals, online and TV/video programs.
• Get the Caixin
e-newsletter

/conga/story/misc/caixin.html
61611

In 2011, several Chinese companies announced their intentions to enter into deals in the U.S., including Shanghai Pharmaceuticals

, with its publicly stated reasons being to seek new drugs to expand its product line and noting declining overseas prices and a strong Yuan, Bright Food Group, China National Materials Co. (Sinoma)

 and Fosun Group, which stated it is looking at consumer brands. Many Chinese companies are going global in the U.S., more and more will be doing so, and for those Chinese companies for which this makes sense and which proceed to do so, they will be in very good company.
/quotes/zigman/1859134 CN:601607
+0.51%

/quotes/zigman/40694 HK:1893
+1.72%

So what are some of the strategies, procedures and lessons on pitfalls that can be garnered from recent deals?
Perhaps one of the most important points regarding engaging in transactions in the United States is to recall the reaction of many Chinese businesses when foreign companies came to China and sought to dictate that deals in China be done in the same manner as in those companies’ respective homelands. This generated ill feelings and often did and can easily result in failure in a deal. The same is true in the United States. Companies from many different countries make acquisitions in the U.S. all the time, and one of the accepted norms is that the deal will be done in “U.S. style.”
While not successful on occasion, the advisor for the U.S. company looking to be sold (especially a “hot” company) may seek to create an auction for the company, thus seeking to maximize the price and otherwise obtain the most favorable terms. Even if they do not succeed in doing this, they will generally seek to have the process move as rapidly as possible. Prospective buyers who are unwilling to follow an auction process when established or move too slowly are simply left behind. An important aspect in dealing with this is to be prepared. This means having done industry and market analysis in advance so as to be able to readily determine one’s interest and willingness to devote the necessary resources to explore the deal, and have ready or be able to quickly assemble a team of qualified Chinese and U.S. advisors.

Clinton calls U.N. veto on Syria a ‘travesty’

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton called the veto by Russia and China of the U.N. resolution on Syria a “travesty” as Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad attended mosque service. (Video: Reuters/Photo: Getty Images)

Many U.S. businessmen object to the alleged slow deal pace of foreign businessmen (and not just Chinese), thus often giving U.S. buyers an advantage. Timing delays are, of course, a tactic to be considered; however they should only be used as deemed appropriate, such as to express reservations or concerns so as to try and enhance one’s bargaining position. However, a buyer should not allow its perceived slowness to cost it a deal it otherwise wants.
While most people properly say “a deal is not done until it is done,” in many U.S. negotiations the same often is not true of individual issues. Once an issue is resolved, it is generally not renegotiated absent special circumstances. A party which acts contrary to this undercuts its counter-party’s trust in it.
There is great significance in the U.S. placed on the transaction contract, as each party seeks to maximize its benefits and protections. As a general rule, legal counsel for a U.S. party, will seek as much protection for its client and clarity in the terms of an agreement as possible. This can be especially important for a buyer or investor. This often means lengthy detailed contracts, and also emphasizes the need for the parties to make decisions relatively quickly with respect to the many points involved. In fact, one view is that many U.S. business persons and their lawyers will only encourage ambiguity in an agreement if they think that addressing the ambiguity in the negotiations would result in it being resolved contrary to their interests or if they think they will have greater negotiating leverage on the point once the agreement is signed or the deal is consummated.
By having a contract be as detailed and precise as possible, the likelihood of a dispute is reduced. This is augmented by the fact that in the U.S. there is a very substantial body of court rulings and laws which help determine what a particular contractual phrase will mean in a particular context, thus creating even greater potential certainty. Finally, it should be recognized that other than private arbitrators and mediators and the courts — all of which are objective but the last of which is slow — no governmental entity or person such as a governmental bureaucrat plays a meaningful role in resolving contractual disputes.
While concerns abound over the possible legal burdens that Chinese companies face in the U.S., there are many reasons for Chinese companies to go global, and in particular to do so in the United States.
Read this commentary on Caixin Online.

/quotes/zigman/1859134

Volume: 17.31M
Feb. 6, 2012 1:34p

/quotes/zigman/40694

Volume: 7.48M
Feb. 6, 2012 1:33p

Andrew Ross is partner and chair of the mergers and acquisitions practice group at Loeb & Loeb LLP. This article is an abridged version of a paper titled, “Acquisitions by Chinese companies in the United States: The case for moving forward now.”

http://tourism9.cm/    http://vkins.com/