Apple increases share buyback programme as profits soar

Apple has announced plans to buy back an additional $30bn worth of stock from shareholders, following the announcement of unexpectedly healthy profits. The company’s quarterly profits beat analysts’ expectations and came by way of impressive iPhone sales, despite the quarter being a typically dry spell for the mobile market.

The company announced second quarter profits of $10.2bn, representing an increase on the year previous, at which time Apple’s net profit came to the much lesser sum of $9.5bn. The above expectation results are due primarily to mobile sales in the three-month period ending March 29, throughout which the company sold 43.7 million units.

The fact that shares picked up as much as eight percent in after hours trading is testament to the enduring appeal of Apple

“We are announcing a significant increase to our capital return program,” said Apple’s CEO Tim Cook in a statement. “We’re confident in Apple’s future and see tremendous value in Apple’s stock, so we’re continuing to allocate the majority of our program to share repurchases.”

Whereas the original share repurchase authorisation came to $60bn, the company, in light of recent results, has upped its efforts a further $30bn and, what’s more, plans to increase its quarterly dividend by approximately eight percent. Cook has pledged to increase the company’s dividend every year from hereon, and to split the stock seven-for-one in order to reel in smaller investors.

From August 2012 through March 2014, Apple has spent $66bn in cash on its capital return programme, so the $90bn programme underscores the company’s emboldened commitment to share repurchases.

Apple’s aggressive strategy, it is hoped, will help revive the company’s share price, which has so far this year suffered a five percent setback prior to the announcement. The fact that shares picked up as much as eight percent in after hours trading is testament to the enduring appeal of Apple, despite the continued absence of any notable new products of late.

The repurchase programme will land more control in the company’s hands, as a string of rumoured products – an iWatch and new TV device amongst them – loom large on the horizon. Until Apple unveils its next blockbuster product, the company’s commitment to shareholders and confidence in its growth capacity will go some way to steady the ship despite slowing revenue growth.

10 of the most controversial financial fraudsters

Financial scandal, it would appear, has really taken off since the crisis took hold a half decade ago, with financial fraudsters racking up billions of dollars worth of illegitimate gains and so often sapping the livelihoods of countless individuals across the globe.

However, instances of financial fraud are far from a product of recent times, nor of developed markets, as many would have you believe, and can be dated back, most notably, to the unsavoury sale of the Roman Empire in 193AD.

What’s more, the increasingly complex regulatory environment, along with on going technological gains in developed and developing markets alike have transformed the very nature of financial fraud and given rise to a new breed of criminal.

With increasingly sophisticated criminal activities have come equally impressive preventative measures, which goes some way to illustrate the extent by which authorities have cracked down on instances of financial fraud these past few years.

Here we take a look at those we believe to be the most important financial fraudsters to date, and cast a brief glance over the exploits that have qualified them for consideration in the first place.

Charles Ponzi

Charles-Ponzi

Although the Italian-born businessman come con artist was far from the first to put the scheme to use, the financial rewards and media attention he brought with it ensured his name would forever be tied to it.

After working various odd jobs and spending a three year stint in prison for forgery, Boston-bound Charles Ponzi embarked upon a new scheme whereby he promised investors – for all intents and purposes victims – a highly attractive return on investment. Ponzi found that international reply coupons (IPC), which could be exchanged for airmail postage stamps abroad, varied in price from country-to-country and in certain instances could be exchanged at a profit of up to 400 percent.

Putting this information to profitable use, Ponzi in just a few short months made the equivalent of over $4.5m in today’s money and lived an incredibly lavish lifestyle for a short while afterwards, buying a mansion in Lexington for himself and first-class ocean liner accommodation for his mother.

However, once the authorities caught wind of the scheme, the fraudster’s earnings quickly unravelled, leaving six banks in disrepair and resulting in losses of some $20m on the part of his many investors.

Kazutsugi Nami

Kazutsugi-Nami

The chairman of the Tokyo-based bedding and linen company L&G was sentenced to 18 years in prison on March 18, 2010 for what many believe to be the biggest investment scam in Japan’s history. Whereas the vast majority of financial scams on this scale target investment funds and the wealthy, Nami’s preyed instead on the everyman, as he defrauded some 37,000 people of $1.4bn.

The fraudster wooed investors with promises of a financial safe haven in the form of a make-believe digital currency he dubbed Enten – meaning “divine yen”. The businessman assured interested parties that the currency would gain in value once the world’s economies collapsed, what’s more guaranteeing them a 36 percent annual return. Investors quickly grew frustrated, however, when Nami began to pay dividends in Enten, and in November 2007 the company declared bankruptcy.

A short time before his trial was due to begin, Nami appeared utterly unrepentant of his crimes, and provoked reporters with a series of tabloid-ready sound bites. “I have put my life at stake,” he told reporters. “Why do I have to apologise? I’m the poorest victim. Nobody lost more than I did. You should be aware that high returns come with a high risk.”

Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout

Javier Martin-Artajo

JPMorgan traders Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout “manipulated and inflated the value of position markings in the Synthetic Credit Portfolio in order to achieve specific daily and month-end profit and loss objectives,” according to a government ruling issued in September last year. “They artificially increased the marked value of securities in order to hide the true extent of significant losses in that trading portfolio.”

Put another way, the traders together engaged in numerous instances of securities fraud that served to keep trading losses of over $6.2bn off the books. The circumstances were better known at the time under the “London Whale” tag, so-called due to the huge sums of money involved.

The spoils of the London Whale team – led by trader Bruno Iksil – loaded JPMorgan with a fine of some $1bn, which was put towards resolving US and UK regulatory investigations. What’s more, the bank’s very own Jamie Dimon was forced to concede a pay cut, effectively putting an end to his unsullied reputation as the bank’s head and raising questions about wider misgivings at large within America’s big four lenders.

Kweku Adoboli

Kweku-Adoboli

The Ghanian national and Nottingham University graduate Kweku Adoboli was once regarded as an integral part of UBS’ British investment arm. His short-lived success, however, came to an abrupt end in September 2011 shortly after he delivered an email to the bank’s accountant, reading: “I take full responsibility for my actions and the shit storm that will now ensue. I am deeply sorry to have left this mess for everyone and to have put my bank, and my colleagues at risk.”

A year on and Adoboli had been sentenced to seven years in jail, erased $4.5bn from the bank’s share price, and prompted the firm’s then Chief Executive Oswald Gruebel to resign with immediate effect. The 32-year up-and-comer, it was revealed, had engaged in various off-the-book activities throughout his time at UBS, which involved him gambling away $2.3bn in unauthorised trades – the largest illegitimate trading loss in British history.

Adoboli’s swift rise through the ranks saw his annual salary turn from £30,000 in 2003 to £200,000 plus bonuses by 2008, during which time he learnt how to manipulate financial records and hide his losses. The scandal served only to accentuate UBS’s lacklustre investment business, which had not long beforehand been made to write off $50bn in bad mortgage loans and endure the brunt of the Libor scandal investigation.

Bernie Madoff

Bernie-Madoff

“Like everyone else, I feel betrayed and confused. The man who committed this horrible fraud is not the man whom I have known for all these years,” wrote Ruth Madoff in the aftermath of her husband’s trial in 2009. The comment came shortly after the former Wall Street trader was sentenced to a 150-year prison sentence, having defrauded his clients of $65bn – amounting to the single biggest accounting fraud case in American history.

Madoff’s elaborate ponzi scheme “took a staggering human toll,” according to judge Denny Chin, who went on to stress that the 71-year olds’ actions were “extraordinarily evil”. The founder of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities and the experienced asset manager was incredibly well thought of by those in the industry and beyond until his illegitimate scheme came to light.

Quite unusually for schemes of this type, Madoff attracted investors not with overly impressive returns, but much rather with consistent, moderate repayments, coupled with an impressive reputation in the field of asset management. What’s more, Madoff’s firm became renowned for its punctuality in returning money to clients whenever they demanded it.

Regardless of the scheme’s size, the SEC remained entirely unaware of any financial misgivings throughout, and Madoff himself was later quoted as being “astonished” by the degree he was allowed to continue unchallenged.

Kim Woo Choong

Kim-Woo-Choong

Prosecutors at the time believed that the Daewoo Group accounting scandal was the single biggest instance of financial fraud Asia had ever seen. As a result of Daewoo’s over investment efforts, the company – which Kim had grown from a modest textile business to South Korea’s second largest industrial conglomerate – was landed with debts worth in excess of $70bn.

In the period through 1997 and 1998, insiders inflated Daewoo’s equity by some $30bn in an attempt to keep the extent of the company’s losses off the books and safe from the prying eyes of investors. As a result, 20 executives and accountants served a six-month stint in prison, while Kim fled the country in 1999.

In 2005 Kim was picked up by authorities on his arrival back home, and immediately made his regret clear in a written statement issued shortly after. “I lower my head deeply down and apologise for having caused troubles to people over the Daewoo Group problem,” he wrote. “I will take whatever responsibility I am supposed to take over the Daewoo Group incident. I feel deeply sorry.”

The once hailed businessman and philanthropist was sentenced to 10 years in prison on May 30, 2006 for his leading role in what remains the country’s biggest case of fraud.

Salvatore Cacciola

Salvatore-Cacciola

Salvatore Cacciola was sentenced by Brazilian authorities to a lengthy jail sentence after he worked together with the central bank to avoid collapse following the real’s devaluation in 1999, and as a consequence left the Treasury with $1.5bn in damages.
Shortly after the former banker’s arrest in 2000, Cacciola fled to Italy where he stayed until 2008, at which time he was picked up in Monaco and extradited to Brazil.

Judge Roberta Carvalho Souza, however, in April 2012, waived the penalty of the former Banco Marka head, after completing only a third of his 13-year sentence and meeting the requirements stipulated in the decree.

Barry Minkow

Barry-Minkow

At the age of 21, boy wonder Barry Minkow was worth $110m after the value of his carpet cleaning and restoration company ZZZZ Best entered with a bang onto the stock market. “Think big – be big. End of story,” he gushed during his appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

However, Minkow’s glowing public personality carried with it a criminal undertone, and one that would later come to define his dealings through the years. In actual fact, ZZZZ Best’s restoration business – which came to account for 86 percent of the company – was non-existent, and was rather an elaborate ponzi scheme dreamed up by Minkow and a select few others.

The con artist was eventually exposed by a dissatisfied client, who took steps, along with The Los Angeles Times, to uncover $70,000 worth of credit card fraud and went on to reveal the full extent of Minkow’s fraudulent dealings.

After ZZZZ Best’s imminent collapse in 1987, the California-born failed businessman was sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding investors of $100m, only to be released seven years on and become a pastor and anti-fraud agent. The story does not stop there, however, as the con man was later found guilty of stock market manipulation in 2011 and charged again in January of this year for cheating the San Diego Community Bible Church of $3m.

Dennis Kozlowski

Dennis-Kozlowski

The New jersey-born former CEO of Tyco International was, until January this year, serving a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison for stealing over $150m from the company he had spent 27 years at. “It was greed, pure and simple,” he told a New York State parole panel in a video conference hearing late on last year. “I feel horrible … I can’t say how sorry I am and how deeply I regret my actions.”

Best known of Kozlowski’s exploits are a $6,000 shower curtain – paid for by the company – and a lavish $2m party for his wife, featuring an ice sculpture of Michelangelo’s David urinating vodka – again, half paid for by Tyco by way of unauthorised company expenses and bonuses.

The otherwise highly successful Tyco executive was convicted on June 17, 2005 of various crimes, among them being $81m in allegedly unauthorised bonus payments and a $20m investment banking fee paid out to former director Frank Walsh.

Jérôme Kerviel

Jérôme-Kerviel

France’s highest court upheld the rogue trader’s three-year jail sentence in March this year and ordered a review of the €4.9bn in damages attributable to Kerviel’s illegitimate dealings at Société Générale. The decision came more than five years after the 37-year old former trader was discovered to have carried out $50bn in unauthorised trades and racked up record breaking losses for the bank.

The Brittany-born former trader claimed that officials at the bank were aware of his activities; moreover alleging that they were happy to turn a blind eye provided he turned a profit. “The only goal was money, money, money for the bank,” he told reporters while on route to Paris in March. “I didn’t care about what I was doing.”

Top 5 most powerful women in the banking industry

Here we take a brief look at some of the most powerful women in banking today and the various ways in which they have come to be seen as such.

Mary Callahan Erdoes, JPMorgan

Despite her relatively low-key public profile, Mary Callahan Erdoes ranks high in the business of asset management. The CEO of JPMorgan’s Asset Management division, Erdoes handles in excess of $2trn, and has time and time again posted impressive gains in spite of what remains a turbulent time for financial services.

Ruth Porat, Morgan Stanley


So often referred to as the most powerful woman on Wall Street, Morgan Stanley’s CFO and Executive VP has emerged from various financial crises unscathed. Porat has also been instrumental in reshaping the public perception of financial services post-crash, and has spoken often on the merits of stress-testing and transparency.

Karen Peetz, BNY Mellon

The firm’s president, as of January 2013, oversees BNY Mellon’s global client management, regional management, human resources and treasury services businesses, and lends a decisive hand in determining the company’s strategic growth and global innovation. It is Peetz’s proficiency in navigating crises that has cemented her position amongst the upper echelons of the industry.

Carrie Tolstedt, Wells Fargo

Carrie Tolstedt heads up America’s largest retail banking franchise and leads approximately 105,000 employees across 6,200 branches and 39 states. The Senior EVP first embarked upon her distinguished career at Wells Fargo in 1986, and has since then gone on to spearhead impressive gains in the retail banking space.

Irene Dorner, HSBC

Irene-Dorner
The British-born President and CEO of HSBC USA has come up against some incredibly trying episodes since taking the reins late on in 2011. And although her first role at the firm was as an in-house lawyer, the executive has since journeyed up through the ranks and come to seen as a pillar of stability in an otherwise volatile industry.

Top 5 growth markets for Islamic finance

1. Qatar

The country’s five-year CAGR stands at 31 percent, and with $54bn worth of Islamic assets Qatar occupies some 24 percent of the overall Islamic finance market. The country, along with Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, UAE and Turkey are considered by E&Y to be crucial to the future internationalisation of the industry.

Qatar
Qatar skyline on the National Day of Fireworks

2. Indonesia

Islamic finance in the Southeast Asian nation has exhibited a five-year CAGR 3.1 times larger than that of conventional financial services at 42 percent. And although the country accounts for a relatively meagre slice of the market, the fact that Indonesia plays host to the world’s largest Muslim population looks sure to drum up growth in the future.

Purple sunset over the modern buildings along Jalan Thamrin in Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia
Purple sunset over the modern buildings along Jalan Thamrin in Jakarta

3. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is home to an incredible $245bn worth of Islamic assets and occupies a 53 percent share of the market overall. What’s more, KSA represents 16 percent of global Islamic banking assets and boasts the highest Islamic banking penetration of any nation worldwide, qualifying it as the most mature Islamic finance market.

Riyadh
Riyadh, capital city of Saudi Arabia

4. Malaysia

The country’s prowess in the Islamic finance sector constitutes a large part of its plan to soon become a major financial superpower, alongside the likes of London, New York and Tokyo. Malaysia is without the huge Muslim population of its closest competitors, but its Islamic finance market is extraordinarily well developed.

The Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur
The Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur

5. UAE

The UAE, Dubai in particular, presents a tremendous opportunity for Islamic finance moving forwards, given that the region looks set to become “the capital of the Islamic economy”, according to the emirate’s Prime Minister Shaikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Moreover, the country is home to $83bn worth of Islamic assets.

Dubai at night
Dubai at night

Spanish royals accused of fraud and corruption

New allegations of tax fraud and money laundering have hit the Spanish royal family as the youngest daughter of King Juan Carlos was named a formal suspect in a long-running corruption inquiry.

Princess Cristina, 48, and seventh in line to the Spanish throne, is currently the subject of allegations of money laundering and tax evasion, making her the first member of the royal family to appear in court since the restoration of the monarchy in 1975.

The accusations towards the princess are based on an ongoing case against her husband, Iñaki Urdangarin, who is being charged for embezzling public money, as well as committing fraud and tax evasion. This follows investigations that suggest that the former Olympic handball player and his business partner, Diego Torres, have funnelled €5.8m ($8m) of public funds through Urdangarin’s charitable foundation, which has organised sports business conferences in Mallorca and elsewhere in Spain.

Urdangarin successfully won contracts to put on such events for the local governments in the Balearic Islands back in the early 2000s. However, according to investigating judge José Castro, several of the events never took place and Urdangarin also overcharged for the services he did provide. In addition, most of the public funds ended up in his private company Aizoon, without the appropriate tax being paid.

Problematically, the princess is a co-owner of the not-for-profit Instituto Nóos and their family business Aizoon, which the money was allegedly siphoned off through and used for personal expenses, such as work on their €6m Barcelona mansion. Princess Cristina and Urdangarin have both denied any wrongdoing.

Prime ministerial support
Further to this, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy publicly defended Princess Cristina prior to her testifying in the highly publicised corruption case. “I am absolutely convinced that things will go well for her,” Rajoy said in a TV interview with Spain’s Antena 3 in February this year. “I am convinced of her innocence.”

Despite the prime minister’s defence, the princess had to testify in a court in Palma de Mallorca in March of this year, amid major public protests against the royal family. The case is one of many high-level corruption scandals in Spain that have undermined faith in public institutions at a time when the economic crisis has resulted in deep cuts in public spending.

The scandal has already done an immense amount of damage to the reputation and image of Spain’s royals – an El Mundo poll revealed that 62 percent of people wanted King Juan Carlos
to abdicate

Whether or not Princess Cristina took part in, or knew of her husband’s alleged activities, is a key contention point in the heated debate surrounding the case. The princess was first linked to the case last year by judge Castro, who suggested that she could not have been oblivious to Urdangarin’s fraud. Castro’s ruling was thrown out by a higher court shortly after, giving him time to gather further evidence and name the princess as an official suspect for a second time in January 2014.

The scandal has gained extra traction as the presidents of the regional governments of Valencia and the Balearic Islands have both faced a string of corruption charges. Investigators claim that the fraud helped fund €3m in refurbishments to the aforementioned mansion. Crucially, documents have proven that the princess had signed herself as both owner and tenant of the home, implicating her in the matter.

Finally, the judge has questioned how the couple were able to obtain a €5m mortgage for said mansion, at a time when the Spanish economy and the royal family has cash concerns. This became an increasingly prudent question when the Barcelona residence was confiscated in order for the princess to cover her husband’s and Torres’ €6.1m bail.

A 227-page allegation
Despite objections from Spain’s anticorruption prosecutor Pedro Horrach, judge Castro has defended his arduous inquiry into the princess’ financials by arguing that this would clear up any lingering concerns about her involvement in the matter. Furthermore, the judge said putting the princess on the stand would remove “any shadow of suspicion” that she is receiving special treatment and thereby cement that justice is for everyone – no matter their social standing, El Pais reported.

This follows allegations from the defence of Ana María Tejeiro, Torres’ wife, who has been indicted since the start of the investigation in 2012. This stands in stark comparison to the princess, who, according to Tejeiro’s lawyer, has been treated as being above suspicion. This was apparent when he recently asked judge Castro whether or not “all Spaniards are equal before the law?”

Public prosecutor Pedro Horrach arrives at court before questioning Princess Cristina on alleged tax offenses and money laundering
Public prosecutor Pedro Horrach arrives at court before questioning Princess Cristina on alleged tax offenses and money laundering

When Princess Cristina was first named as a formal suspect in the case in April 2013, judge Castro’s allegations were overruled. However, following months of further investigation, Castro proceeded to issue a 227-page decree charging the princess with a different set of allegations, namely that she may have violated laws against money laundering and evaded tax on earnings linked to the organisation.

In the filing, Castro also made it clear that given the princesses’ role in Instituto Nóos and the Aizoon company, it would have been “difficult for Urdangarin to defraud Inland Revenue without his wife’s knowledge and acquiescence”, The Guardian quoted the judge as saying.

Princess Cristina and Urdangarin have refrained from responding to the new allegations, however the royal household said in an official statement on the judge’s summons that it had “maximum respect for judicial decisions.”

Preferential treatment?
The case has been marked by public sparring among Spanish legal authorities, as they and the public scramble to either support or oppose the monarchy. As mentioned earlier, Castro’s ruling went against the recommendations of anticorruption prosecutor Horrach, who has maintained throughout the case “that there was no evidence the princess had committed crimes”.

With the prosecutor and the judge carrying out separate investigations, several disagreements have arisen. This was most evident when the prosecutor in December 2013 said that the judge’s allegations were part of a “conspiracy theory”.

However, the prime minister’s aforementioned vigorous defence of the princess has further sparked concerns that the royal family might be receiving preferential treatment. Notably, opposing members of parliament have questioned how Rajoy could be so sure of the princesses’ innocence in order to be able to publicly comment on the case.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is applauded in a parliament session. He has supported Princess Cristina’s right to remain innocent until proven guilty
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is applauded in a parliament session. He has supported Princess Cristina’s right to remain innocent until proven guilty

In a parliamentary debate in January 2014, some MPs even suggested that the prime minister’s statements had brought into question the Spanish separation of powers and that the judicial process surrounding the case was not as independent as it claimed to be, The Telegraph reported.

However, the Spanish Prime Minister maintained that justice would be served – no matter what. “I have to respect, as I’ve said before, the decisions of the judges and the prosecutors,” Rajoy said. “I would like, as the King very rightly said, for everyone to be equal before the law. As such, the princess also has a right to be presumed innocent,” he explained.

Consequences and reputations
However, her innocence is yet to be proven, as Princess Cristina only gave her first testimony in a Mallorca criminal court on 8 February 2014. The hearing itself was conducted behind closed doors, but Spanish and international media quoted a lawyer who was present during her testimony.

Manuel Delgado, who acts on behalf of a group that had joined the proceedings as a plaintiff, said that Princess Cristina had been “very prepared to evade any questions.” The Princess said she had trusted her husband to manage their finances, he explained, adding that she had replied “I don’t know or I don’t remember” to 95 percent of the questions asked, The Guardian reported.

In comparison, Princess Cristina’s lawyer, Miguel Roca, called the day a success: “The princess demonstrated that we are all equal before the law,” he told El Mundo.

Another member of her legal team, Jesus Maria Silva, denied claims that the the princess had been evasive during proceedings, saying that “answering yes or no is the opposite of being evasive.”

In the unlikely event that she is found guilty, Princess Cristina faces up to six years in prison for money laundering and a fine of three times the value of the money laundered, as well as further punishment for tax evasion.

Potential personal consequences aside, the case is also making it much harder for Spain’s royal household to distance itself from the corruption allegations surrounding Princess Cristina’s husband.

The scandal has already done an immense amount of damage to the reputation and image of Spain’s royals – an El Mundo poll revealed that 62 percent of people wanted King Juan Carlos to abdicate. What’s more, just over half of respondents said they did not support the monarchy – a finding that could further strengthen Spanish moves towards the country’s Republican past.

Whether or not the case against the princess will have such major consequences is yet to be seen; however, with sky-high unemployment leaving more than 680,000 Spanish households without any source of income, the allegations of frivolous spending and corruption has made the royal family seem even less in touch with the Spanish public. A public that is thirsty for someone to blame for the country’s ongoing austerity programme.

Pay secrecy could soon be a thing of the past

While the concept of transparency has entered the management mindset in recent times, the idea of full pay disclosure has been largely sidestepped at corporate level, where managers have generally been backed up by academia and psychological research in their decision to keep pay secret.

Various studies have found that employers are right to impose pay privacy rules, and that a more open system could disincentivise workers and impact productivity. Put simply, pay transparency can breed jealousy, resentment and even rivalry, especially in a world where wage discrepancies are common and inequality a fact of corporate life.

As it stands, pay is by-and-large known only to employers and left to the discretion of workers as to whether or not they wish to disclose their private information. It’s a state-of-affairs that allows employers to skirt responsibility for conflict in the workplace, and one that, some would say, protects employees from demotivation on their discovering vast wage differentials between themselves and co-workers. However, it’s also one that many claim is widening the income inequality gap.

A recent study, carried out by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), shows that, of a sample of 2,700 companies, discussions of pay are either prohibited or discouraged in the workplace. Of the respondents, 19 percent said that discussions of wage were formally banned in the workplace; a further 31 percent claimed that disclosing salary information was discouraged by management.

Many executives are quick to argue that the challenges of keeping employees content are demanding enough, without the uncertain complications that come with pay transparency. What’s more, the vast majority of senior management and executives will have journeyed to the top with their experience of the workplace being that openly discussing pay is frowned upon, if not formally banned.

The Buffer formula for fair pay

Salary = job type x experience + location (+$10k if salary choice)

1. Job type = base

  • Happiness hero = $45,000
  • Happiness engineer = $52,500
  • Engineer = $60,000
  • Founders = $80,000
  • Non-founder c-level = $20,000

2. Experience = multiplier 

  • Master: 1.3x
  • Advanced: 1.2x
  • Intermediate: 1.1x
  • Junior: 1x

3. Location = additional

  • A: +$22,000 (e.g. San Francisco, Hong Kong, Sydney, London, Paris, New York)
  • B: +$12,000 (e.g. Nashville, Birmingham, Vienna, Austin, Vegas, Tel Aviv)
  • C: +$6,000 (e.g. Estonia, Poland, Romania, Chile)
  • D: +$0 (e.g. Philippines, India, Vietnam)

4. Equity/salary choice

  • You get a choice of more equity or more salary. If you choose salary, you get +$10,000

Having said that, there exists a growing body of work that shows pay transparency to be a far superior style of management to that of secrecy. And whereas disclosing employee wages could demotivate workers who feel they’re grossly underappreciated and underpaid, the alternative line of thinking is that they would actually be motivated by a policy of openness and transparency.

Millennial change
A new study carried out by Elena Belogolovsky of Cornell University and Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University ponders the supposed damages of pay secrecy on performance, and comes to the conclusion that increased transparency could hold the key to improved productivity.

“Many managers believe that pay secrecy is better because it avoids the implications if one employee finds out that a co-worker makes more than him/her,” reads the report. “However, many up-and-coming Generation Y employees have grown up in the public world of social media and have no issues sharing information with one another that used to be seen as private – such as pay.”

The compensation advisory service KnowledgePay also suggests that improving communication with regards to pay, far from disincentivising employees, can result in a more committed, engaged workforce. “Organisations have to face it,” says the company’s founder and Chief Executive Chris Kelley; “compensation is no longer a secret.”

The wider issue here is not one of pay in itself, but one of transparency, and it’s no coincidence that a company’s commitment to transparency on a holistic scale often bears a strong correlation to where it falls on the pay disclosure continuum. The fundamental problem with secrecy, it is argued, is that it has a tendency to spread to other facets of the business and ultimately breed mistrust both inside and outside the company in question.

Uncovering unfairness
“Complete transparency is hugely beneficial and well worth the cost,” says Dane Atkinson of SumAll.com, an emerging data organisation company and one that itself practices full pay disclosure. “It fosters a meritocracy where effort is more fairly compensated. It removes the politics of subject compensation and assures those that don’t negotiate a fair wage. It prevents discrimination and abuses. Most fear it, and in many cases, those who fear it have reason to. Those employees may stand to lose compensation.”

Many argue that the longstanding reluctance of businesses to make employee pay public actually perpetuates income inequality – the belief among employees that they are not remunerated fairly among co-workers. Transparent pay, on the other hand, boosts competitiveness and places far greater pressure on companies to impose pay equality, as can be seen in the case of public organisations, which are forced to report pay structures. And although pay transparency falls far short of a solution in itself, it’s likely to stop higher earners pulling away from the lower earners by quite as much as they are doing at present.

“After all, how can you know you are being discriminated against if you can’t discuss your pay?” says Linda Barrington, Executive Director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University.

The issue of pay transparency, however, need not necessarily apply to full disclosure, but rather to how explicit a company is in specifying how an employee can progress through the ranks and earn a raise. Regardless of a business’ disclosure policy, the process, system and criteria for earning a raise or promotion should be clearly laid out for all to see and understand, so as to protect against unequal standards and confusion among employees.

Control or trust?
Regardless of whether or not pay transparency is believed to be the best style of management, imposing the system on a company that has previously abided by one of secrecy could quite easily result in any number of problems. Removing the notion that pay should remain hidden from view is an incredibly alien concept to some, considering that many companies, if they were to embrace pay transparency, would be exchanging total control for employee trust.

The solution to income inequality is not to focus on full disclosure alone, but instead on improving transparency and fairness across the board

“Transparency leads to trust,” says Daniel Tenner, Director of Grant Tree, a company that specialises in securing government funding for young technology companies. “If your employee doesn’t have the information to make a decision, you can’t trust them to make that decision. Conversely, if everyone has all the information, and you’ve hired smart people, they will usually make the right decision. Transparency effectively means that you treat your employees like adults who can handle the truth, rather than children who must receive a filtered version of reality.”

Another organisation to have adopted total pay transparency is the social media start-up Buffer, which has cleverly devised a formula (see boxout) for fairly designating pay to each of its employees so as to better avoid potential conflict. The company’s system sets a standard base pay in accordance with one of five levels, and factors in multipliers based on experience, location and equity.

“Transparency breeds trust, and that’s one of the key reasons for us to place such a high importance on it. Open salaries are a step towards the ultimate goal of Buffer being a completely open company,” says the company’s CEO Joel Gascoigne.

This suggests that the concept of total pay transparency is more easily applied to start-ups and smaller enterprises, whose relatively simple structures can better take on board what at first glance appears a revolutionary series of changes. For larger businesses that have for some time practiced quite the opposite, the key to instigating greater pay transparency may lie instead with a policy of partial openness.

Culture of openness
Although the idea of pay transparency has come to be looked upon more favourably in recent years, those who consider it as a viable option remain in the minority. Most are entirely unconvinced of its ability to breed a culture of openness and see it instead as a cause for discontent among employees.

As can be seen in Belogolovsky and Bamberger’s report, the solution to income inequality is not to focus on full disclosure alone, but instead on improving transparency and fairness across the board.

“The solution is not to make pay systems completely open, but to make them more transparent and fair, and communicate clearly about them. Employees need to understand how to get from point A in a salary range to point B. It’s also important to make sure that employees perceive the system as fair – it doesn’t matter what you think. If your employees don’t perceive it as fair, you’re in trouble.”

Markos Kashiouris on the evolution of the forex market | Iron FX | Video

Since the onset of the 2008 global financial crisis, the forex market has grown to become an investment class on its own. Markos Kashiouris, Chairman and CEO of IronFX, talks about the impact of changes on the market and new hotspots for trading growth.

World Finance: Tell me Markos, how has the forex market evolved?

Markos Kashiouris: The key element that arose since 2008 is that forex has become an asset class on its own, and becoming an asset class on its own means that, first of all, it has become more interesting to all kinds of investors, from retail to institutional.

The second element is that it’s a truly global market nowadays, so it’s not just part of the Anglo Saxon world, it’s not part of the English speaking world, it’s huge in Asia, it’s huge in Latin America, it’s huge in Russia, it’s huge in Africa, it’s huge in Europe. So the definition of the asset class is not necessarily arising from the financial crisis in 2008, and therefore people want to invest into a new asset class, it’s just a combination of all other factors that evolve around investing, and around having access to a liquid market 24 hours a day.

World Finance: Have you seen the profile of the average trader change in recent year?

Markos Kashiouris: The average trade has become more sophisticated, both in terms of the product that they require to trade, but also the systems. This increase in sophistication has given rise to a new breed of FX companies, that cater specifically to this increased sophistication.

People want the ability to use all kinds of trading technology on that platform that will enable them to perfect their trading strategies. Automated trading, algorithmic trading, social trading where they follow different trade leaders, the ability to trade on multiple accounts at the same time. So sophistication is the key element of the change, and being sophisticated is an advantage for both ourselves in the market, and also the industry growth as a whole.

World Finance: Do you find investors and institutions gravitating towards forex since the global recession a few years ago?

Markos Kashiouris: We have to split the market into retail and institutional in order to answer this question in detail. The retail trader has been driven by technological advancement, the increase in internet penetration, the proliferation of companies like us, offering the service to the clients.

For institutional investors, the creation of a new asset class is more prevalent in the sense that the forex market is not very correlated with the equity market, with the credit market, so therefore can be used as a natural hedge in many instances. Also it’s very liquid, and it’s very transparent, so that’s another reason that institutions have moved into this market, especially since 2008.

World Finance: Is the forex market able to transcend political tremors? Such as instability in Ukraine, or unease in Greece or Spain?

I don’t think any single political or economic event can crash the forex market

Markos Kashiouris: The forex market, by definition, is a global market, it’s a 24/7 market, where there is no single exchange that is handling it. So in that respect, yes, it can withstand all kinds of political instabilities and political barriers. It’s also a market that thrives on volatility. Having events, for example, such as what is happening now in Ukraine, it’s almost like providing fuel to the market, providing a reason for people to trade.

I don’t think any single political or economic event can crash the forex market. There will be movement in currencies, that’s how the market works, but you’re not going to see the seizure of the market in the fashion that you saw the seizure of the credit markets in 2008, because of a single event.

World Finance: Finally, many of your competitions target Asia, is that the new hot spot for forex trading growth?

Markos Kashiouris: Yes, our focus is in Asia, for a multitude of reasons. Size of population, emerging growth, urbanisation, economic growth, the creation of the new middle classes that want to have an investment product. All these kinds of socioeconomic elements will persist for a few more decades in my opinion, and therefore we will continue our concentration in Asia.

World Finance: Markos, thank you.

Markos Kashiouris: Thank you.

MtGox scandal puts spotlight on Bitcoin security

Bitcoin, its most devout followers would tell you, is the future of money. Recent successes have underlined a triumphant period for the cryptocurrency. When it first emerged in 2009 from creator ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’, who may not be one person and whose real identity is unknown, few anticipated the totality of its achievements.

Bitcoin is now on the cusp of the mainstream; every week a growing number of businesses now accept payment in the currency, from beekeepers to internet service providers. One of the biggest electronic payment processing systems for Bitcoin, BitPay, has been extremely successful. The company says that over 20,000 businesses have already adopted its system to allow for Bitcoin payments.

Despite this, the currency still struggles with its reputation. High profile cases have associated Bitcoin, because of its anonymity and security, with illicit activities. When prominent online black market and drug-trafficking site Silk Road was shut down in October last year, FBI officials seized 144,000 bitcoins, worth around $28.5m at the time.

The latest scandal – the closure of MtGox, the currency’s biggest exchange – could be a turning point. The exchange’s failure is severe. It has left six percent of the entire currency, some $450m, lost or in limbo. There are, however, lessons to be learned from the scandal that, if applied correctly, could usher in a new age for Bitcoin.

Pseudo-anonymity
In late February, MtGox disappeared from the internet. The website was wiped clean and Twitter accounts were closed as one of the most trustworthy of Bitcoin’s many exchanges crumbled. A leaked memo reveals some of the story: in what seems to be an unparalleled, multi-year hack, the exchange had been made insolvent and its reserves had been pillaged.

$450m

Of Bitcoins ‘lost’ by MtGox

Nearly 850,000 bitcoins – 750,000 belonging to users and 100,000 to the exchange – vanished; spirited away and protected by the pseudo-anonymity that Bitcoin offers. It is pseudo-anonymity, as opposed to complete invisibility, because Bitcoin’s global ledger is completely transparent, allowing anyone to see transactions that have taken place between Bitcoin wallets, but diving through the myriad of data is a forensic activity in itself.

Meanwhile, the company’s CEO, Mark Karpeles, remains an elusive figure. At a press conference soon after the bitcoins were announced as lost, Karpeles resigned as the company tried to save some face. He cut an apologetic figure, bowing to the assembled press and insisting that the company would do everything to get the coins back. He has since had his assets frozen in the US by a Chicago-based judge as incensed customers seek reparation for MtGox’s failures.

MtGox had already been mired in controversy. First, in October last year, the US Government seized $5m from the company’s accounts for allegedly running a money transfer business without properly registering it with the relevant authorities. Then, for much of February, customers were unable to complete withdrawals because of so-called ‘transaction malleability’ – a bug in the software that can be exploited to mask transactions to make it seem that they did not actually occur. It is this bug that many believe has drained MtGox dry and left it unable to complete legitimate withdrawals.

Put simply, it appears that an enterprising hacker could have masked the fact they had found a backdoor into MtGox’s supposedly secure reserves. In theory, the exchange could now track the fraudulent transactions, but realistically this would achieve very little and would be very costly to attempt. If the coins had been slowly siphoned off for many years, they would now be disseminated throughout the currency’s peer-to-peer network so greatly that tracing them would be almost impossible.

One of Bitcoin’s principle strengths is that everyone has a stake in it

The recent revelation that the company has found 200,000 of the missing bitcoins in a ‘cold wallet’ – so called because it is completely offline and isolated for security – that had not been used since June 2011 has illuminated the dubious decision-making at MtGox. These malpractices, especially for a company that handles such massive sums of currency, are the opposite of what Bitcoin needs if it is to become more widely accepted.

For the customers who lost their bitcoins, in many cases worth thousands of dollars, there is little that can be done. To an outside observer, it would seem that nothing short of a miracle will bring the rest of the money back. There are now accusations that MtGox was using the bitcoins in its coffers for arbitrage by taking advantage of the volatile price environment the exchange caused at the beginning of February.

With some even suspecting that Karpeles himself made off with the money, recovery seems a long way off. Whatever has happened, many find it incredulous that MtGox’s accounts could be siphoned so comprehensively for such a long period of time without someone at the company becoming aware of the fact.

The company itself has filed for bankruptcy protection and has ceased operations from its Japanese headquarters. The company reported it had approximately $64m in liabilities and has since had to file for bankruptcy protection in the US to prevent legal action against the company by US traders. In the short term, there seems to be some indication that the company may attempt a rebranding – simply becoming ‘Gox’ – to try and regain trust, but that will be a hard pill to swallow for those who are so deeply out of pocket.

In the meantime, employees at MtGox have asserted a belief that the exchange’s collapse will take its toll on the currency. In a leaked ‘Crisis Strategy Draft’, employees wrote that “with bitcoin/crypto just recently gaining acceptance in the public eye, the likely damage in public perception to this class of technology could put it back five to 10 years, and cause governments to react swiftly and harshly. At the risk of appearing hyperbolic, this could be the end of bitcoin, at least for most of the public.”

Failing into the mainstream
Marc Andreessen, Silicon Valley entrepreneur, says claims that major reputational damage will be dealt to bitcoin in the long-term are false. Speaking to the Freakonomics website, Andreessen said that “one way to look at it is basically MtGox has to fail in order for bitcoin to go mainstream because MtGox was never set up to be able to take bitcoin mainstream, which is basically what’s happening now. The good news is we have many new companies that are much more serious and much better run.”

The short-term fallout was indeed damaging for the currency. Bitcoin’s price plummeted to a low of around $460 per coin (see Fig. 1) as customers panicked about the ramifications of MtGox’s collapse. Other exchanges were quick to heap condemnation on the company.

Early-2014-Bitcoin-price

In a joint statement, CEOs of six of the biggest exchanges said: “as with any new industry, there are certain bad actors that need to be weeded out, and that is what we are seeing today. We are confident, however, that strong bitcoin companies, led by highly competent teams and backed by credible investors, will continue to thrive, and to fulfil the promise that bitcoin offers as the future of payment in the internet age.”

Many see the MtGox scandal as the turning point for bitcoin quite simply because the example of MtGox will preclude from it ever being repeated. The currency’s core companies will have no choice but to become increasingly transparent, trustworthy and legitimate. One of Bitcoin’s principle strengths is that everyone has a stake in it – for the currency to be successful and for businesses to make money, they have to provide the systems for it to become successful.

David Yermack, Professor of Finance at NYU Stern School of Business, disagrees with the assertion that no long-term reputational damage will be done. Speaking to World Finance, Professor Yermack warned that “for any currency to be widely used, the public would need to have confidence that it cannot be stolen, counterfeited or erased by a malevolent third party. In principle, I think that any cryptocurrency will have ongoing issues with hackers. It seems axiomatic to me that any computer code can be hacked, and as bitcoin grows more valuable, the incentives of hackers to invest in undermining it only grow larger. People seem very naive about these risks.”

Whether the furore surrounding MtGox is the death knell for bitcoin remains to be seen, and naive or not, there are still signs that the scandal will become a defining moment for bitcoin. Other exchanges have vowed not to repeat MtGox’s mistake, and there is growing clamour both for reform and also for MtGox to repay what it lost.

It does seem that the sheer drama of the collapse has made some of the cryptocurrency’s key players re-evaluate their position. One thing appears to be certain: if bitcoin cannot clean up its reputation, and if the companies upholding the currency fail repeatedly, it is hard to see it becoming widely accepted by the general public. If these things can be overcome, then the promise of a currency free from government interference could be too hard to ignore.

US beef production drops as cattle herds dwindle

The hamburger is, in many ways, the quintessential American foodstuff – from the sweet white bun to the meaty beef patty. It has long been a staple in the diet of millions of Americans, for better or worse, and has evolved as a sort of shorthand for all-American culture.

Any soccer mom or college student will tell you that the key to a decent hamburger is the meat: fatty, flavourful, coarsely ground chunks of the finest Mid-Western beef the chef can lay their hands on. Simple and effective.

However, the humble hamburger is quickly going from food staple to luxury treat. The price of fresh American beef has been on the up for years and peaked this January at $5.04 a pound. Despite farming incentives and a healthy appetite in the market, the American cattle herd shrunk to the smallest it has ever been in 2013.

At the same time, export levels are soaring, having broken records last year, while the cost of meat in the US just keeps rising. For the first time in living memory, chicken sales have surpassed those of beef in the US.

Less beef, more demand
A number of factors are at play when it comes to the value of American beef, from market appetite to the weather in the Central Plains. And it seems that all of these factors have been conspiring to create less than ideal market conditions for the homegrown cattle. US beef production is forecast to drop over six percent in 2014, as cattle inventories shrink further.

Global beef consumption

2013

57 million tonnes

However, global meat consumption is on the up, and shows no signs of slowing down. In 2013, a record 57 million tonnes of beef were consumed globally, and according the US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, 2014 is set to break even more records.

Exports are forecast to surpass 9.2 million tonnes globally, with India and Brazil leading this growth. The US remains the world’s biggest producer of beef, but with dwindling herds it is fast losing market share. Production is forecast to drop to under 11 million tonnes in 2014.

Though the US cattle herd has been shrinking for decades, the trend has accelerated markedly since 2007, and in 2013 plummeted to the lowest levels since 1951. The current slump started in 2007 as feed crises increased exponentially, leading to large financial losses for producers. Though prices have since returned to normal, herd numbers are yet to recover.

“While incentives have turned positive, they have not been in place long enough for the industry to begin registering signs of expansion according to USDA numbers,” Chris Hurt, an agricultural economist based at Purdue University, told Gary Truitt at Hoosier Ag Today. “The rebuilding of the beef herd is expected to take multiple years.”

Traditional industry
Though the cattle industry is still one of the most important in the US, the rise in the consumption of alternative proteins like chicken, fish and soy-based products, means that the market is increasingly complicated. Protein is a vital part of the human diet, so consumption is likely to remain stable even as prices increase.

The trouble for the beef industry is that while it once ruled supreme on the American plate, it is increasingly being substituted for other meats or vegetable products. People still have to eat, after all; but so do the cows that feed us.

Customers are certainly the ones feeling the pinch, and that eventually will affect sales and the value of a head of cattle, leading to an industry meltdown

Before a cow is slaughtered and butchered, it has been fed expensive grains for the better part of two years. It has been estimated that for every pound of meat it yields, the animal has consumed over 13 pounds of grain. Not only is this inefficient, considering humans often also eat similar grains, but it means that the cost of raising a cow can fluctuate wildly from year to year.

Since 2007, grain prices have been on the rise, especially in the US, where draught-plagued summers and bitter winters have punished the farmland, lowering production. The weather has also affected the grazing patterns of animals. Traditionally, cows are fed a mixture of grain rations and grass they eat as they roam the fields.

A severely dry summer in 2012 and the harsh winter of 2013 made it impossible for grazing to take place, both because it was too cold to leave the animals outside, and because the weather killed off the pastures. As a result, animals’ grain intake has had to be increased, at huge cost to farmers.

“They can’t eat wind, water and the scenery,” laments John Freitag, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Beef Council, in the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. At the same time, those adverse weather conditions have sent the price of grains soaring through the roof, leaving cattle farmers stuck in a double-whammy.

As a result, a huge number of animals have been sacrificed. In 2013, the US cattle inventory was down two percent from the year before, which may not sound like much, but the drop represents the loss of over one million cattle. And the decrease is increasingly problematic; 2012 had already been a record-breaking year, as the American cattle herd plummeted to its lowest in over 60 years. “There’s a million-plus head of cattle that just aren’t here anymore,” says Freitag. “Some guys just decided that it was easier to plant corn than it was to raise and feed cattle.”

Cuts of beef in a cooler. US prices for prime cuts of beef have skyrocketed in recent years
Cuts of beef in a cooler. US prices for prime cuts of beef have skyrocketed in recent years

It might seem counterintuitive to note that beef prices have remained high, even as all the beef from the cull hit the market, but domestic and international has been soaring, even as the American herd shrinks. This means that while raising and feeding cows has certainly become more expensive, the price per head of cattle has actually increased.

“It’s certainly a good time for the beef industry,” Amanda Ralke, a fifth generation rancher from South Dakota, wrote in Beef Magazine. “Bull sales have been on fire. Cull cows are worth a pretty penny. Just try buying a bred heifer these days; an open cow is pretty costly to replace.”

Customers are certainly the ones feeling the pinch, and that eventually will affect sales and the value of a head of cattle, leading to an industry meltdown. According to Hurt and Truitt, “some cow/calf operations will see 2014 as the golden opportunity to get out with record-high cow prices. But the greater tendency will be for producers to hold on to the cows for the profitable opportunities that are expected over the next three or more years.

“The price outlook [for the beef industry] is extremely favourable for 2014-16. Beef supplies this year are expected to be down five percent, while domestic demand is expected to remain positive.”

Chicken dinner
At the beginning of March, Ralke could buy a whole fresh chicken for around $0.69 per pound, when a pound of 93 percent lean beef mince would have set her back $4.99 a pound on the say day, and a prime cut would have fetched something in the region of $12.99. So while it is understandable that prices should be climbing so fast, given the market circumstances, it will still be a bitter pill to swallow for American consumers, long accustomed to cheap, good quality beef.

Chickens in a hatchery in Alabama. For the first time in decades, chicken sales have surpassed beef sales in the US
Chickens in a hatchery in Alabama. For the first time in decades, chicken sales have surpassed beef sales in the US

“The cost of meat has gone up significantly – 30-40 percent and in some cases 50 percent – in the past five to seven years,” Jeff Sindelar, an Associate Professor who specialises in the meat industry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the Journal Sentinel. “The growth of the middle class in developing countries probably has more to do with the increase in demand and related prices than anything else.”

The situation in America is not being helped by the fact that the production of beef in other competing markets is rising fast. According to USDA, production in the EU, China, India, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil are all set to increase, bringing millions of tonnes of beef to the international market. The USDA has proposed lifting a ban on fresh beef from 14 Brazilian states – something it had been previously reluctant to do because of concerns over foot-and-mouth disease.

Expensive tastes
However, this is unlikely to change, as cow meat generates such a wide array of meat products – from fresh steak to frozen lunch meats – that many countries rely on different types of imports to satisfy this very diverse need.

“The US is the largest producer, the largest consumer, the third-largest exporter and the largest importer of beef in the world,” Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist, explained to Beef Magazine.

He added that the US is such a large import market because it is by far the largest producer of hamburgers, a product that requires a lot of lean meat, which must be imported at lower costs, as the majority of lean US produced beef is sold as prime-cuts. Cheaper imports make up the difference in the humble burger.

The hamburger has become a staple of the American diet, but rising production costs could see it become more of a ‘luxury’ item
The hamburger has become a staple of the American diet, but rising production costs could see it become more of a ‘luxury’ item

The hamburger is clearly a sign of a deeply problematic industry. It is not efficient to feed cows to high standards of lean meat, only to grind it up into patties and other processed beef products. But at the time, consumers are increasingly reluctant to fork out the excessive costs of for a pound of premium steak. Though there has not been a cultural shift away from beef yet, it is only a matter of time – at which point the industry will have to reorganise itself and accept the ‘luxury’ label, or dump the quality of the product.

The latter would have drastic consequences, not only for farmer’s bottom lines, but for the health of the nation, which is already struggling with the effects of poor diet and nutrition standards.

The hamburger has evolved from a Friday night and summer afternoon staple to a luxury product that will soon be unaffordable to many Americans. Prime steak cuts have long since been reserved for treat days, and the trend is not likely to reverse anytime soon.

Consumption levels of US beef are already declining slowly, but the nation’s taste for beef remains unabated – if families can afford it they will consume beef over any other protein product – but there will come a time when even the most extravagant consumers will balk at the sight of the price for a pound of beef. And that day could come sooner rather than later, and then it will be no use crying over spilt milk.

Obama’s EITC plans would lift half a million out of poverty

Choosing to combat inequality in an age of austerity is a bold move on the part of the US president, and one that can sometimes threaten to bump up state expenditure, strangle SMEs and further widen the deficit. Nonetheless, a buoyant Obama reiterated in December that, “for the rest of my presidency, that’s where you should expect my administration to focus all our efforts.”

The president’s aggressive anti-poverty stance was again on show in his 2015 budget, which included all manner of sophisticated schemes to fight what he believes to be “the defining challenge of our time” – income inequality. His stance is not confined to the bumper policy of a ‘10-10’ minimum wage ($10.10), which has received thumping support from the public so far; the president’s plans also include a proposal to expand Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to 13.5 million Americans.

Unfortunately, the wage subsidy angle is often neglected in favour of a focus on higher pay, but the EITC’s effectiveness should not be underestimated, and its superiority over a wage hike is plain for all to see. “There are other steps we can take to help families make ends meet, and few are more effective at reducing inequality and helping families pull themselves up through hard work than the EITC,” agreed Obama in his State of the Union Address.

A brief history of EITC
The poverty prevention mechanism was first enacted under Gerald Ford’s presidency in 1975 and has since been expanded upon numerous times during both Democrat and Republican terms. Although qualifying parties are defined by various parameters, the single most important factor is that the recipient’s earned income falls shy of the living wage. Put simply, the EITC is intended to lessen the burden on low-income working families and individuals; the subsidy amount is dependent on the level of income and number of persons who depend on it.

In 2011, the most recent tax year from which the data is available, the average refund for a family with children came to $2,905, which served to boost wages by $240 a month, according to the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). In that same year, 28 million working families and individuals received EITC, cementing its stature as America’s largest poverty prevention scheme, aside from the minimum wage.

In 2012, the EITC lifted 6.5 million Americans out of poverty, including 3.3 million children, and the overall number of children affected would have been one-quarter higher were it not for the system. A year later, the EITC and the refundable Child Tax Credit (CTC) together supported 32 million working families and lifted 10.1 million people out of poverty – an incredibly impressive achievement for any one single mechanism.

Most important of all is that the revised EITC system would lift half a million people out
of poverty

What’s more, the subsidy is mutually beneficial to both the recipient and the wider economy, in that the refund incentivises individuals to rely not on benefits but on work as their primary source of income. Research shows that the EITC boosts employment, which in turn boosts income, with the Obama administration finding that the subsidy in itself prompts one in 10 parents to enter the workforce that would not have otherwise done so.

Although the system has been incredibly effective thus far, it has largely failed to address workers who are without children but with those same financial pressures. “Right now, it helps about half of all parents at some point,” says Obama. “But I agree with Republicans like Senator Rubio that it doesn’t do enough for single workers who don’t have kids. So let’s work together to strengthen the credit, reward work, and help more Americans get ahead.”

The Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio criticised the EITC system in January, and urged policymakers to consider wage subsidies as opposed to tax subsidies as a way of reaching more childless workers. “This would allow an unemployed individual to take a job that pays, say, $18,000 a year – which on its own is not enough to make ends meet – but then receive a federal enhancement to make the job a more enticing alternative to collecting unemployment insurance,” he said at an event marking the 50th anniversary of the ‘war on poverty’.

Changes and costs
Under Obama’s new proposals, the EITC will increase its coverage of workers without children, doubling the maximum credit available to $1,000, and upping the income level at which the credit is phased out to approximately $18,000 – 150 percent of the federal poverty line.

Moreover, the scheme’s expansion would make an additional 7.7 million workers eligible for a larger subsidy and apply to an additional 5.8 million workers who were previously ineligible. Of the 5.8 million extra, 3.3 million would be young adults aged 21 to 24, 300,000 aged 65 to 66, and 2.2 million have a salary that comes in above the current cut-off point.

The president’s proposal would

  • Directly reduce poverty and hardship for 13.5 million low-income workers struggling to make ends meet.
  • Under the president’s proposal, 7.7 million workers would be eligible for a larger EITC, while 5.8 million workers would be newly eligible for the credit.
  • Those newly eligible would include 3.3 million working young adults age 21 to 24, 300,000 older workers age 65 or 66, and 2.2 million workers with incomes above the current cut-offs.
  • The increase in the credit would lift about half a million people above the poverty line and reduce the depth of poverty for 10 million more.
  • Non-custodial parents likely comprise 1.5 million or more of those benefiting from the proposed EITC expansion. By boosting these parents’ incomes – and encouraging work – the expansion may benefit their children as well.

Most important of all is that the revised EITC system would lift half a million people out of poverty and significantly reduce the depth of poverty for over 10 million Americans if it came to pass.

Unfortunately, the president’s proposed changes do come accompanied with a $60bn price tag to-be-paid over a 10-year period, which at first glance looks an unachievable sum of money to muster for a government still attempting to cut its deficits. However, it looks as though Obama will attempt to offset any losses by closing a couple of longstanding tax breaks for wealthy individuals.

First is the ‘Ginrich’ loophole – so called after the former Republican House Speaker – which allows self-employed individuals to skirt Social Security and Medicare payments with the establishment of an S-corporation. This set up means that only a select percentage of overall earnings are treated as taxable income, and the rest labelled as company profits.

The second, lesser-known loophole is commonly known as ‘carried interest’, which allows managers of private equity, venture capital and hedge funds to have their salary treated as capital gains, again allowing the individuals in question to opt out of payroll and self-employment tax.

Even if the president can gather up sufficient support to close the loopholes, which looks likely at the present time, questions remain as to whether the public will back the EITC in the same way they have done the minimum wage hike.

EITC versus minimum wage
“I prefer wage subsidies to the government mandating that employers pay higher wages,” says Michael Strain, economist at the American Enterprise Institute. “Wage subsidies have been shown to draw people into the labour force, whereas higher wages through government regulation may result in a smaller workforce.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $10.10 rise could lift approximately 900,000 people out of poverty, albeit at the expense of some 500,000 jobs. “Wage subsidies like EITC are potentially a more attractive option because they can be better targeted,” says Len Shackleton, Professor of Economics at Buckingham University. “Hikes to minimum wages benefit many people who are not in poverty, and do nothing for those who cannot find work – indeed they worsen their position if they make employers reduce hirings.”

The fundamental difference between the two is that with a minimum wage, the costs are passed on to businesses and possibly consumers, whereas with EITC the costs ultimately lie with the taxpayer. The latter is far superior, however, in the sense that it constitutes a more targeted approach to combatting poverty and begins to tackle some of the root causes of the problem by prompting individuals to take on low-paying positions – many of which remain unfilled.

“The EITC has been very successful at reducing poverty, both by drawing more people into the workforce and by increasing the earnings of low-income workers,” says Strain. “On the other hand, because they are so poorly targeted, minimum wages are not effective anti-poverty tools.”

Upping the proposal’s prospects further still is the fact that the EITC is one rare point on which Republicans and Democrats agree – although Republicans want the tax subsidy to be expanded on in place of a minimum wage rise, whereas the president and his ilk believe both benefits to be essential.

“It would be nice to think it will succeed,” says Shackleton, “but congress appears still to be a toxic environment. Republicans have generally spoken in favour of tax credits rather than minimum wages, but they do cost taxpayers money, and given the Republican hostility to raising taxes, and the antipathy many of them show towards Obama personally, I wouldn’t bet on this proposal succeeding.”

All things considered, the president’s EITC proposal is perhaps better seen as a symbolic gesture in that the vast majority of government spending has already been decided upon by bipartisan agreement. While Obama’s plans are unlikely to come into being, the EITC proposal does act as an essential reminder of the wider issues at hand here: the lack of education and relevant skills to spur social and economic mobility.

How legislation is changing the crowdfunding landscape

As of March this year, overall donations to the five-year-old crowdfunding platform Kickstarter surpassed the $1bn mark, with in excess of half that amount made payable in the 12 months previous. What’s more, $663.3m of the $1bn stemmed from US shores, which serves only to accentuate a new class of internet investor whose wish it is to see inspired start-ups and innovative ideas pushed to the fore.

While the crowdfunding phenomenon has exhibited consistent and impressive gains recently, the regime is plagued by regulatory inconsistencies and security concerns, making it near impossible for authorities to come to terms with it. Nonetheless, if America’s small businesses are to expand upon their investment horizons and attract capital from alternative channels, the powers that be must work towards ridding the investment landscape of its longstanding exclusivity.

At present, laws allow unaccredited investors only to contribute capital to a particular product or service on websites such as Kickstarter, which in itself carries little to nothing in the way of ownership and amounts rather to the lesser status of donor as opposed investor. However, the next phase of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act looks like it could change the crowdfunding market, as it gears up to enter the complex domain of securities.

JOBS Act
The SEC’s crowdfunding proposal, otherwise cited as the ‘CROWDFUND Act’ and commonly referred to as Title III, in theory could bring comprehensive new powers to unaccredited investors and broaden the funding opportunities for small enterprises and start-ups in one fell swoop. However, many remain unconvinced of the SEC’s capacity to bring fundamental regime changes to fruition, with the approval of the long delayed Title III reforms looking an increasingly unlikely prospect as times wears on.

$1bn+

Total pledged

58k+

Successfully funded projects

5m

Total backers

1m

Repeat backers

14m

Total pledges

According to figures compiled by Docstoc, the US plays host to some 28 million small businesses, and upwards of 50 percent of the national population is on the payroll of companies with fewer than 500 employees. What’s more, small businesses are responsible for over 65 percent of the country’s net new job growth since 1995, so the importance of smaller parties in spurring national economic growth should not be underestimated by any means.

“Cost-effective access to capital for companies of all sizes plays a critical role in our national economy, and companies seeking access to capital should not be hindered by unnecessary or overly burdensome regulations,” writes the SEC. Knowing this to be the case, JOBS Act represents an attempt on the part of US authorities to lighten the load on the country’s millions of start-ups and small businesses seeking investment, and signals an effort to empower an emerging class of unaccredited internet investor.

Signed into law on April 5, 2012, the JOBS Act is a formidable legislative package designed to boost the ease by which small business owners and start-ups can secure capital, and in effect take their company public. “For startups and small businesses, this bill is a potential game changer,” remarked President Obama moments after the bill was signed. “Laws that are nearly eight decades old make it impossible for others to invest.

“But a lot has changed in 80 years, and it’s time our laws did as well. Because of this bill, start-ups and small business will now have access to a big, new pool of potential investors – namely, the American people. For the first time, ordinary Americans will be able to go online and invest in entrepreneurs that they believe in.”

Understandably, since the act first came into being, sites such as Kickstarter, Fundable and Indiegogo to name a few have all gathered extraordinary momentum, and crowdfunding has emerged as a viable business option for young companies seeking the means to scale up their operations. However, the central fact remains that the process is still little understood by regulatory authorities, and the issues obstructing the legislation from passing in full are incredibly difficult to negotiate.

The advent of Title II
Despite on-going deliberation with regards to the CROWDFUND Act, Title II of the JOBS Act was implemented in September 23, 2013 and should be seen as a no less crucial step forward for small enterprises and start-ups seeking additional capital.

Essentially, the introduction of Title II does away with the 80-year-old ban on mass marketing private securities offerings.

Whereas previously companies could not put their address books to good use when appealing for additional capital, the new regulations, or lack thereof, have opened up various new channels for taking a small company public, regardless of their having ties to the SEC or not. In order to qualify as an investor, the interested party need only be certified as an institutional buyer or accredited investor, which, crudely put, amounts to an annual income of $200,000 or net worth of $1m.

Prior to the Title’s incorporation, engaging in general solicitation was illegal for small private companies, and the process was reserved only for larger companies whose stock was listed on the public exchange. Fast-forward to today, however, and small companies are utilising social media, email and all manner of public forums to secure highly sought after capital inflows. In essence, the changes to the 80-year-old laws amount to a long overdue response to the vastly improved-upon means of communicating with the wider public.

While Title II acknowledges the lengths by which the investment landscape has changed these past few years – most notably since the advent of the digital age – the overhaul does, however, stop short of inviting unaccredited investors into the mix, which is where Title III comes into play.

The emergence of Title III
Title III is without doubt the most eagerly anticipated development contained in the JOBS Act, although it also amounts to the most overdrawn, with the comment period and rule-making phase having only recently been extended yet again, this time to the third quarter of this year. What’s more, many expect the reforms to falter further still in the coming months, owing to increased scrutiny stemming from affected parties.

[T]he SEC’s proposed rule changes appear to be utterly unworkable
in places

The biggest change with regards to Title III is that of investor accreditation. Whereas investing in private companies has for long been the preserve of the wealthy, the revolutionary Title III reforms invite far lesser earners to the fray and attempt to do away with the upper limit restrictions.

Although individuals have for some time been able to commit capital to various projects posted on crowdsourcing platforms, it is only with the introduction of Title III that donors’ capital can finally be exchanged for equity. In effect, given that Title III is signed into being, crowdfunding sites will be populated not by mere donors, but actual investors. However, this change is not without its own set of complications.

Whereas the opportunity for everyday citizens to invest their money in whatever company they see fit looks an appealing one at first glance, very few businesses want their stock to be spread thin across the globe by hundreds of internet investors. Moreover, whenever – or if ever – Title III is unleashed, the market will no doubt play host to wave upon wave of new capital and a greater exposure to fraud than ever before for both businesses and investors alike.

The principal challenges here are twofold: the first being that companies asking for capital are able to legitimately uphold investors’ best interests; and second, that the contributors can afford to pay the sums they claim they can. While the problems here sound simple enough in theory, constructing a framework whereby the issuer and investor’s best interests are kept at arms length is incredibly complicated – some would say impossible.

The overriding issue hampering the implementation of Title III is that there exists a fundamental conflict of interests between the issuer and investor. Whereas investors want access to as complete a set of financial information as possible before they commit to their investment, small companies and start-ups are utterly unwilling to expose the innermost workings of their businesses to the masses.

As such, the SEC’s proposed rule changes appear to be utterly unworkable in places. Add into the mix the as-yet-inconclusive proof that the proposed changes will make good business sense and that the market for unaccredited investors is in fact a viable one and the reforms proposed changes look incredibly unlikely to come into play.

Granted, the Title III proposals amount to a long overdue shake up of the investment market; however, for as long as either party is unwilling to make concessions on the way to its realisation, the stalemate between issuer and investor will remain in place.

Entrepreneurs are ‘drowning’ in incubators, says tech expert of government’s Silicon Roundabout | Video

Has the government’s Tech City initiative – otherwise known as Silicon Roundabout – helped entrepreneurs realise their dreams? One silicon-sceptic is Hanadi Jabado, Director of Accelerate Cambridge and a technology expert. World Finance speaks to Jabado to hear her views on incubators, and whether tech city is anything more than a marketing initiative.

World Finance: Hanadi, why do you think this is the case (that business incubators can be cemeteries):

Hanadi Jabado: You put in the same room 50, 100, 200 people, who do not know what they’re doing, who have no clue where they’re going, who have the need for support, for mentoring, for coaching, and for guidance. And they’re looking around, and everybody else seems to be drowning, and so they drown too. If you need high tech, broadband office space, then yes, go to an incubator. But nowadays, everybody can get broadband in their kitchen. I work from my kitchen quite often.

World Finance: But do you think that there is no intrinsic value in having those incubator/hub models?

Hanadi Jabado: There was once upon a time. So when incubators started being set up, there was a need for them. There was a need because people didn’t have the infrastructure to be able to work from home. No one had high speed broadband at home, ADSL didn’t exist. You needed to get out of your house and go somewhere where you could get connected should you enter the digital age. Nowadays we don’t have the same need. If you are in the start-up world, there’s a flow going. You need to meet likeminded people. I am extremely lucky, because I work in Cambridge. I meet investors riding the bike. I meet entrepreneurs on the train. I am not sitting in a hub waiting for them to come and talk to me, they come and find me.

World Finance: So why do you think the idea has continued to take off here in London?

Hanadi Jabado: Nowadays people want to be entrepreneurs. They don’t really know what an entrepreneur is. They don’t really know what an incubator is. They don’t really know what an accelerator is. But they very much want to be an entrepreneur. And if you are telling them that Tech City is great, and Tech City is creating all of these jobs, and that Tech City start-ups are so successful, well, they will believe it and they will come, and they will want to get closer to the light.

World Finance: So do you think the gospel of the government is working?

Hanadi Jabado: I definitely believe that there is a huge marketing effort behind Tech City. I read a press release about Tech City, and it said that Tech City was launched in 2010. Well, you launch a new movie, you launch a new product. You don’t launch a cluster. Clusters get organically created.

World Finance: In terms of hubs, there was this national push, it was called the National Virtual Incubator program. It was a partnership by Cisco Systems and the Cameron government, the intention being to link up start-ups across the country. Do you think that was actually created, or are we just looking at one big London incubator?

Hanadi Jabado: The national virtual incubator has been launched, it does exist. It is struggling to take off. The nodes, as they call them, the local clusters, were identified, and they were connected. However, nothing is happening and there hasn’t been anything really taking off yet, so there’s no traction. Cisco have been using the national virtual incubator to create their own innovation centre, or incubator, or whatever you want to call it, guess where? In Tech City, next to Google Campus, and it’s called Idea London. Did we need another incubator in central London? I genuinely believe that, had they built Idea London in the middle of nowhere, where rent is low, where life is cheaper, entrepreneurs would have thrived, and the local economy would have been boosted.

World Finance: So who loses when nationwide efforts then kind of whittle down into very locally focused projects?

Hanadi Jabado: The entrepreneurs definitely do. The innovators definitely do. The taxpayers do, because it’s their tax money that is invested in those projects.

World Finance: Now let’s talk about the experience of a Google Campus, for instance. Do you think having a hub in a location where people of like minds can come together in any way commodifies the creative experience?

Hanadi Jabado: We have similar outfits in Cambridge, and we have the traditional St John’s Innovation Centre, one of the very first incubators in the United Kingdom, and what they do is amazing, and they are helping entrepreneurs who are more established, who can’t afford to get their own office space. But we also have a lot of Google Campus wannabes, people who rent huge space and then sublet it to entrepreneurs who are desperate to get through. However, the experience of those entrepreneurs is that they get there, and yes, they do meet other entrepreneurs, but they also meet them in the colleges, they also meet them in the supermarket, they meet them on the street, they meet them at lectures. They do not get a unified experience, because there’s nothing happening, they’re just working as if they were working, again, from the comfort of their kitchen.

[T]hey will realise that actually innovation can only be harnessed, it cannot be manufactured

World Finance: OK, now let’s talk about marketing. There’s a press release on one of those Tech City London websites, in which Number 10 issued a statement that said Tech City, also known as Silicon Roundabout, has grown from 15 tech companies in 2008, to topping the chart for new business generation in the UK in 2013, with more than 15,000 new start-ups. Do you believe that?

Hanadi Jabado: There probably are 15,000 start-ups, but how much of those will still be alive tomorrow? How many of those will still be surviving in three years? What are their contribution to the economy? How many people are these start-ups employing? What is their contribution to the rest of the wider United Kingdom economy? I would like to invite David Cameron and his government to take a look at a very good website called The Cambridge Cluster Map, that quantifies the contribution that Cambridge has had to the economy, and I would invite them to try and set up something similar for Tech City, so that we see if the numbers that you are quoting from the press release, how they evolve over the years, how can we quantify it? And I would like to invite them to go on one of our executive education courses innovation, and maybe they will realise that actually innovation can only be harnessed, it cannot be manufactured.

World Finance: OK, well thank you very much for joining us today.

Hanadi Jabado: It’s a pleasure, thank you very much for inviting me.

Zucker Punch: 8 Facebook acquistions to remember

2005
What’s in a name? An awful lot, it seems, when you’re dealing with Facebook. It all started with a domain name called AboutFace. Well, that was too close for comfort, so in August of 2005 Facebook site snapped up the Boston-based firm for $200,000, a paltry sum for a company that was already booking $9m in revenue that year.

2007
In June, a brilliant 22-year-old programmer named Blake Ross, already a legend for co-founding Firefox, was working on a web operating system called Parakey backed by Sequoia Capital. The system hadn’t even been launched, but in July Facebook came knocking. It was Zuckerberg’s first major buy. Soon afterwards, a Silicon Valley website would note: “Facebook has a new mission – buy all the talent under 25 in the Palo Alto Mountain View area.”

ConnectU founders, and twins, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss reportedly won $31m in damages from Facebook after they filed a lawsuit alleging Zuckerberg had copied their idea

2008
Launched by Harvard students in 2004, ConnectU was a fledgling social networking site. The young geniuses behind it, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, asked ex-Harvard alumni Zuckerberg if he wanted to be involved and take the site further. Big mistake. Zuckerberg did indeed get involved, but at their expense – the students would later claim. The issue turned messy and finally ended up in court – and in a movie called The Social Network. Eventually, in 2008, Facebook paid a reported $31m including damages for ConnectU under a court settlement and, yes, shut it down.

2009
FriendFeed was a highly original social media site developed by, among others, Paul Buchheit, who created Gmail and for good measure coined the latter’s informal motto: ‘Don’t be evil’. According to many in the industry, FriendFeed was ahead of Facebook in several areas. For instance, it was FriendFeed that invented the ‘like’ click. Still, the $47.5m cheque did the job and the site no longer exists.

Instagram---Facebook-acquisitions
Something to smile about: Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom reportedly pocketed $400m after Facebook acquired the photo sharing service

2010
By now Facebook had 400 million users and deep pockets – $2bn in revenues and $600m in net income; a ratio that most companies would die for – and Zuckerberg was buying up companies wholesale; nine in that year. Next on the shopping list, rival site Friendster sold out for $40m as Facebook broadened into entertainment and other areas.

2011
Facebook snapped up no less than 11 companies in its busiest year of acquisitions to date. Two of the biggest were Beluga, a group text-messaging site that went for an undisclosed sum, and Snaptu, a brilliant Israeli platform for smartphones that allowed users to access popular services, for around $60-70m. Later that year, Beluga was closed.

Whatsapp---Facebook-acquisitions
Facebook’s recent acquisition of WhatsApp cost the company a whopping $19bn – staggering the investment world

2012
As revenues shot up to $5.089bn, an increasingly confident Zuckerberg acquired Instagram, an online photo sharing service, for $1bn. It was a good payday for its Chief Executive Kevin Systrom, who pocketed around $400m in cash and stock. In the case of Instagram Facebook would, for once, as CNNMoney.com put it, change its habit of buying “hot start-ups, killing their products and redeploying their staff on other projects.”

2013
Facebook slowed down to nine acquisitions in 2013 but its breadth illustrated the site’s deep ambitions. They included a design agency called Hot Studio, some backroom stuff like verification software Monoidics, SportStream, which analyses sports conversation, and Jibbigo, a speech translation app. But Zuckerberg already had his eye on bigger fish: WhatsApp. Will he stop there? Unlikely, but what’s next?

Sky-high rents force tech start-ups to leave London’s Silicon Roundabout | Video

Hannah Donovan, Co-founder and Design Director of This Is My Jam, speaks about the changing vibe of London’s Silicon Roundabout. With rents reaching extortionate prices and the government pushing its own agenda, is the Old Street tech hub losing its allure?

World Finance: Hannah, tell me, how did you end up here in Haggerston?

Hannah Donovan: We’re originally incubated by a Boston-based company called The Echo Nest, and we had a studio over on the “Silicon Roundabout” in Old Street, and after we went independent from them towards the end of last summer, we then started to think about our options for our space, and in January we decided to move here.

World Finance: Tell me more about the evolution of the Silicon Roundabout community.

There’s a lot of money being poured into the area, the rents are getting raised, the vibe has really changed

Hannah Donovan: I think if I really had to pinpoint something, there’s many things going on over there, there’s a lot of new builds, there’s a lot of money being poured into the area, the rents are getting raised, the vibe has really changed. It’s gone from being an area that’s been a little bit more diverse, where you had not only tech companies but also artists and musicians and designers, all sorts of different types of people there, to a slightly more tech focused crowd that just tends to be more the same kind of person.

And that was just something that didn’t really appeal to us so much any more, especially being a music start-up, and that being a really, you know, music and all the things that come with it, fashion, street culture, all that stuff, being really important to what we do and what we thrive on.

World Finance: But isn’t gentrification a slow evolution in any city?

Hannah Donovan: Sure, absolutely, and I’m not hating on gentrification here. Change is inevitable, and change is good. I’m just pointing out that the change that has happened in this particular case, I think maybe isn’t necessarily something that is as fertile a place for us to be working anymore. In a more hard cost kind of way, rent was also an issue too, and so by moving to Haggerston we were able to be just far enough away that it’s outside of that zone, and we were able to cut our rent in half, which was really significant to a small company.

World Finance: Tell me more the slow migration of entrepreneurs out of Silicon Roundabout.

Hannah Donovan: The thing is that there’s no one place that everyone is scattering to right now, and I think that’s a really important point to make. That it doesn’t feel like there’s a scene, so to speak, like it really did feel like when I came here in 2006.

World Finance: Why do you think the government is promoting Silicon Roundabout so much?

Hannah Donovan: Oh yes, I think it’s definitely profit-driven, for sure, it’s all about the economy, especially down the road, looking at the longevity of industries in the UK that are going to support the economy in the coming decades, it’s absolutely about that. There’s no doubt that there’s a lot of talent here for that, and we were demonstrating that early on way before this initiative started, and there’s tons of great stuff coming out of the UK, so it makes perfect sense that they would look to it as sort of the next thing for the economy. I think it just makes a lot of sense.

World Finance: If Silicon Roundabout isn’t helping entrepreneurs, who is profiting from this model?

Hannah Donovan: The same people that profit from it in any place, really, the people that put the money in originally. That’s how it works. Sure, starting your own company there’s a small chance that as a founder or something you might be able to make a nice exit, but I want to stress that is not the majority of people, that’s sort of a one in a million chance.

World Finance: Let’s look at one of the prominent features of Silicon Roundabout, which is the Google Campus model or incubators in general, where you rent space to discuss ideas. Do you think entrepreneurs are at any sort of competitive edge by being there, or are they simply commodifying the creative experience?

Hannah Donovan: Yeah, it’s a bit of both really. On the one hand, it’s great to be able to brush shoulders with people that might not otherwise get to do, and it’s also great that they offer space that people can hot desk in because, as I mentioned earlier, leases are kind of a big thing to get locked into early on.

However, I think on the other hand, it does sort of attract a certain type of individual, and being in those space it’s a bit of the same sometimes, I guess is how I would cautiously put it, and there’s maybe a little bit less of the sort of diversity that we were seeing previously.

World Finance: Now in an effort to quantify the successes of start-ups, Number 10 issues a statement that Tech City UK has “grown from 15 tech companies in 2008 to topping the chart for new business generation in the UK in 2013 with more than 15,000 new start-ups.” Do you think these numbers are in any way misleading?

Hannah Donovan: I feel like I’m pretty embedded in the community and I have a good sense of what is going on. It does sound a little bit on the inflated side to me, and I just wonder if they’re counting also all of the companies that don’t still exist since then, or what the quantifier for being a tech start-up is. Is it just a small business that has a website, or is it a company that’s actively making their money from technology? Because those are two pretty different things.

World Finance: Now if you think entrepreneurs don’t need the glittery landscape of Silicon Roundabout, what do they really need in terms of government support?

I would have loved to see some rents that were more affordable, I think that’s incredibly important, I don’t know why that hasn’t been more supported

Hannah Donovan: I would have loved to see more multidisciplinary co-working space, I would have loved to see some rents that were more affordable, I think that’s incredibly important, I don’t know why that hasn’t been more supported. Some of the pubs in the places that we would hang out and talk about our ideas and trade thoughts were, I think, where the innovation really happened. A lot of them have been upscaled or shut down.

I don’t think that anyone would necessarily see this as something really important, but stuff like that, those sort of community infrastructure pieces were actually really important to what we were doing, so it’s more that side of things, for me anyway.

World Finance: Is it even possible to say where or if there will at all be a next great tech hub?

Hannah Donovan: I would say it’s impossible to say so right now. I would love to hope that that will happen and that we’ll see that come out of London eventually, but it’s really hard to say, and if rents keep going in the direction that they do and if we are forced to move out of here in a year’s time or two years’ time, then that continual migration and lack of place where people can congregate to make things could make it really hard for people to do the type of work that we do in London.

World Finance: You’re a few years into building your business here. Is London still the right city for you?

Hannah Donovan: At the moment I would say yes, just because London is a really great city for music, and I do firmly believe that London is a place where music revolutions have always happened and will continue to happen. And so at the moment I’m still rooting for it.

Do you have a story about Silicon Roundabout or finding space for your start-up? Continue the conversation on Twitter with @worldfinance and @han

China must open its doors to rest of world

The latest economic reforms announced at China’s most recent Third Plenum were broad and had far-reaching consequences for the world’s second-largest economy. Even top Chinese politician Yu Zhengsheng admitted that the reforms were “unprecedented”. The committee announced a wide range of changes to state-owned industry and land reforms desperately needed in China’s large agricultural sector.

The biggest news, however, was the announcement of an intention to liberalise the financial sector and continue to open the country to foreign investment. In a move that echoed the Third Plenum of 1978, in which the Chinese Government first attempted to enact market-oriented reforms, the country seems to be bringing itself ever closer to the rest of the world. The changes haven’t been pulled off without a hitch, however. Long promised and not entirely as advertised, the latest reforms have once again posed the question of just how willing Asia’s economic powerhouse is to open its borders fully and embrace foreign investment.

Investing in China has its own challenges. The atmosphere of the market is quite unlike any other. So too is the potential windfall. Despite signs that China’s growth might be slowing, the opportunity to make big gains has attracted many to the idea of investing in the country. China drew $19.3bn in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the first two months of 2014, a jump of 10.4 percent compared to the same period last year.

Despite a slight slowdown in February that officials are blaming on business closures caused by the Lunar New Year, the figures remain strong. Even so, the unique investment environment in China means there are several key issues that anyone considering FDI in China should not avoid.

Elusive reforms
First, and perhaps foremost, is the extent to which the country has actually enacted the reforms that it says it has. Although some observers hope that China is drifting towards a freer market, for now the biggest problem appears to be one of bureaucracy. The Chinese government is still extremely specific about which industries it will allow to receive foreign investment.

China real GDP growth

10%

2005

11%

2010

7-8%

2015

Although the services sector attracts the majority of the investment – $6.33bn in the first months of 2014 – China is keen to promote a wide range of industries to foreigners. Equally, though, some sectors are completely closed off from foreign interference, for a variety of reasons – some economic, most political.

The Chinese system involves four broad classifications, listed in the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign-Invested Industries. Industries deemed by the Chinese government to be a priority for foreign investment gain a coveted ‘encouraged’ status. This status bestows preferential tax treatment and other incentives for foreign investors, and is designed to attract technology and high-profile management to the chosen sectors. At the moment, only a few industries are encouraged – mostly hi-tech, environmental and energy – but whether the Chinese government will slowly give more industries priority treatment is unknown.

On the other side of the scale, some industries are ‘restricted’ or even ‘prohibited’ entirely. The latter category is quite specific; at the moment the Chinese Government bans any foreign investment in cultural, sports or entertainment industries. As for restricted industries, investment in financial services is still government controlled.

Under Chinese rules, foreign investors in the banking industry are not allowed to own more than 20 percent of a local bank. For commercial banks, there is a 25 percent cap on foreign ownership. Moreover, the policies restrict investors to investing in only two banks and require stringent approval checks. The Chinese government says that these policies help preserve sustainable development in the country. For foreign investors, the strict rules are perhaps not easing fast enough.

Other countries have been quicker to ease their legislation. India, for example, has recently relaxed investment restrictions in several key sectors. Last August, the government announced that the retail sector, in particular, would place fewer regulations on potential investors. India historically had strict targets regarding the percentage of goods that are locally sourced, but the severity of the measures has now been lessened. This is welcome news for those seeking to invest in the country, but across the border in China they have yet to replicate this more liberal, open market view.

Geographical considerations
In China, not only are the regulations industry-based, they are sometimes geographically based. For example, Shanghai was recently turned into the country’s first free trade zone (FTZ). The FTZ has its own problems. Policymakers are reluctant to enact policies in the zone that would have a knock-on effect across the country. For example, if interest rates were to rise in the FTZ and Chinese banks moved there en-masse, the resulting rush of money to Shanghai could have a very extreme destabilising effect on the rest of the country.

It remains to be seen whether the FTZ has worked or not, but across China certain key target areas are given special or preferential status. Now, so-called ‘Special Economic Zones’ (SEZ) and ‘Economic and Technological Development Zones’ (ETDZ) are being scattered across parts of China to attract investors. Again, the SEZs have special powers to promote foreign investment. Not only are there special tax incentives, but legislators in the SEZs themselves receive more autonomy on both their policymaking and also how they encourage international trade. Unfortunately, while new regulations are introduced centrally, the interpretation of the rules can vary from province to province.

This means more and more companies investing in China have had to adopt a region- or province-based financial model, instead of a centrally controlled one. Grant St. John Leech, the Chief Executive of C.E.O. Financial, a consultancy that runs fdiChina.com and their Wealth Management, Compliance & Risk in Asia 2014 report, agrees with this outlook.

Speaking to World Finance, Leech said that “if you are looking to sell to the domestic consumer market, you must understand that China cannot be considered a single homogeneous market. Rather, it is a patchwork of regional, disparate markets (see Fig. 1) with distinct dialects and considerable cultural differences. In terms of logistics, the distribution infrastructure is more regional than national and should therefore be taken on piece by piece [basis].”

China-GDP-by-province-2009

In some ways the country is desperate for the investment as the government seeks to prevent the economy slowing down below the country’s target of 7.5 percent GDP growth per year. Although even the tiniest slice of China’s GDP growth rate would be a dream come true for most Western nations, the economy is nevertheless straining a little.

There are a myriad of contributing factors. The Chinese Government’s long-standing policy of building infrastructure to stimulate growth appears to have finally caught up with itself. Burgeoning overcapacity has drained enthusiasm for further mass construction, as more and more ‘empty cities’ spring up across the country.

Secondly, it appears that China’s demographics problem is only going to worsen in the coming years. As the ‘baby boomers’ begin to approach retirement, the effects of China’s historic One Child Policy may usher in an ugly, difficult period for the country. Analysts say that even if a Two Child Policy were enacted today, China’s population curve would not normalise for a further 20 years.

China finds itself with no choice but to open its doors to the rest of the world

All of this mounts pressure on the government, which finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Unwilling to enact the radical liberalisations that China would need to head towards a free market, but also unable to relieve domestic pressures on the economy without outside influence, China finds itself with no choice but to open its doors to the rest of the world.

Big steps have been taken with the yuan in recent months as the government continues to ease controls. Looser regulation of the currency, perhaps even heading towards permanent and full convertibility, will help investing prospects. To foster international trade, China has recently allowed direct currency trading between some of its biggest trade partners.

A recent high profile deal with New Zealand was seen as one of the first signs that China is serious about internationalising the yuan. This, coupled with the recent doubling of the currency’s daily trading band, all point to less intervention in the future. Despite this, in its recent investor outlook, PwC said that “government policies remain stringent in [their] control of foreign exchange and other transactions. This leaves treasuries engaging in much documentation and bureaucratic finessing.”

Cultural differences
Leech points out that there is also an immense cultural consideration necessary when investing in the country. “Cultural issues are very important and should be carefully managed. It is often the case that joint ventures between Western companies and their Chinese partners encounter difficulties as a result of a crucial cultural distinction: the Chinese business culture demands trust, whereas the Western business culture demands transparency. Neither viewpoint is necessarily wrong. When issues arise regarding the sharing [of] information, how this disparity in expectations is managed becomes crucial.”

China-FDI-inflows

There are still places to slip up for an investor though. State-owned and state-funded businesses require particular attention. Investors who find themselves contravening the very strict rules surrounding state-funded businesses can even fall foul of the law. They also have to struggle to ensure that any company invested in has suitable governance standards as outlined by the law.

For business, Leech says there are two potential strategies. “In terms of legal structures, a company can initially set up a representative office to carry out the considerable due diligence that is required. Thereafter, the choice is between establishing a ‘wholly foreign owned enterprise’ (WFOE) or opting for a joint venture with a domestic company.

“In either case, you must establish partnerships and relations with people on the ground and the choice of these partners will be a crucial determinant of success or a lack thereof. Due diligence in this regard is critical as there are myriad stories of unscrupulous partners taking advantage of naive market entrants.”

The problem is twofold, however. Not only is it difficult for an investor to gauge the suitability of a company, but they could also struggle when seeking clarification or when advancing the investment process with the government. PwC’s report says that “in seeking a successful strategy for dealing with government, foreign businesses should seek out constructive avenues of action. Investors should adopt a careful and measured approach in working with the government… they should be active in engaging relationships with government officials in order to stay informed.” Access to officials is still difficult, however, and corruption is still relatively prevalent.

Although China’s President Xi Jingping has repeatedly promised a crackdown on corruption, including going as far as to speak about it in his first speech as leader in 2012, progress is slow and murky. These issues, coupled with the continued fluidity of the investment environment, have lead many to believe that China’s reforms are simply progressing far too slowly and the country’s policymaking is struggling to keep up with the levels of FDI the country is now seeing (see Fig. 2). A rapidly forming bureaucratic backlog could be the most damaging thing for the country in the long run, especially as it continues to commit to looking outward.

Gold in a minefield
But perhaps China’s nervousness in enacting the reforms is justified. Three decades ago, it was an isolated nation that refused foreign interference. Subsequent shifts in economic policy opened up the country and accelerated growth to put China on the road towards economic supremacy.

The country’s previous administration reversed some of the progress that had been made, however, believing that liberalisation was too painful and damaging. In an article entitled Liberalisation in Reverse, economics analyst Derek Scissors writes that China’s previous government presided over a period of “renewed state intervention: price controls, the reversal of privatisation, the rollback of measures encouraging competition, and new barriers to investment.”

The current changes, then, are being promised with the anxiety and concern of a country that is still trying to retract its so-called ‘visible hand’, which historically has guided economic policy. For investors, the political machinations are frustrating, but the dream of reforms, promising. It remains to be seen how dedicated the government is to the liberalisation, but the fact that it has not let the matter fall by the wayside, as some might have expected, is reassuring.

For now, investment is still an encouraging prospect, despite the difficulties. After all, as Anthony Bolton, top fund manager at Fidelity Special Solutions, says, finding investment opportunities in China is like “looking for gold in a minefield”.