old blog

2010-01-19T12:08:00.000-08:00

There was a property crash? In Naples? When?

January 19th, 2010

Duke Warnier of Westbury Properties is going to talk us through how the economic upheaval of the past couple of years is affecting the local property market. Duke has been in the industry for many years, and his company, Westbury Properties manages a portfolio of some of the area’s premier real estate.

“The real estate market as a whole has been an interesting space to inhabit over the past two years. The heights of 2006 when property prices were higher than most other places in the country to now and a 32% drop in property value.”

We have gone from one of the most valued property markets in the country to one of the most undervalued. Demand is still high, but credit is hard to get. The deposit requirement is now higher than ever, as is the qualification criteria. So there are some great bargains to be had, but the net doesn’t spread as wide as it once did.

Some analysts say we’re headed for a ‘double-dip’ where the economy contracts, then recovers and contracts again. This belief is given credence by the dearth of credit available right now. I’m not sure I subscribe to that. The quantitative easing measures put forth by the government have made great steps in speeding up our recovery, but now it seems government debt is the new sub-prime.

Both businesses and consumers are tightening belts and eliminating waste which bodes well for the future. I think the worst is over and we will slowly continue the recovery through 2010 and into 2011. The US economy is subdued but strong. Many business have battened down the hatches and are sitting tight until things improve. They have worked hard over the past couple of years to survive, and when things recover they will be in a great position to take advantage of new opportunity.

While most of the recovery so far has been generated by government demand, such as the ‘Cash for clunkers‘ scheme and other public spending initiatives, the private sector has also started reacting to the more optimistic climate. This is essential because without private sector input, the government alone won’t be able to sustain the recovery.

That said, the market is still active and has bucked the trend, thanks to the climate, the area and some great inventory. Naples is still a beautiful place to live, recession or no recession. People still want a slice of paradise.

Despite the slow recovery, the lack of credit and other factors, there are plenty of bargains to be had, and still plenty of money floating around to take advantage of it. This has meant the market, and Westbury in particular has weathered the storm quite well. We still have inventory to move, and clients to satisfy, and that’s all that matters really, and I know other agents are in the same position, which is a good place to be for the market as a whole.

2009-07-24T12:52:00.000-07:00

All U.S. children should get seasonal flu shot: CDC

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All U.S. children aged 6 months to 18 years should get a seasonal influenza vaccine every year, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday.

The CDC's Dr. Anne Schuchat said the agency was strengthening recommendations for children to get the vaccination against seasonal influenza, especially with fears that the new H1N1 virus will be added to the already expected burden of seasonal flu.

Advertisements –> Business Card Software | Estero Home Staging

2009-07-14T13:44:00.001-07:00

Goldman’s Outrage

How the Wall Street giant used your money to make $3.4 billion in profits.

They will never admit to this at Goldman Sachs (they don’t really fess up to much over there at the Big G) but in the fall of 2008, just after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy gave the world a lesson in systemic risk, Goldman, the world’s greatest risk taker, was finished too.

That’s right, it was toast. Finished. Kaput. Until, that is, the firm that was built on wheeling and dealing in some of the most esoteric investments the world of high finance had ever seen, needed a government bailout to stay afloat, which included $10 billion in cash from the Treasury Department (granted by its former CEO, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson) and more importantly, full access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window to be a commercial bank.

Goldman Sachs, which was bailed out by the federal government, is now using the bailout to resume some of the same risk-taking activity that got it in trouble in the first place.

Goldman, of course, is a commercial bank like no other. You won’t confuse Goldman with the ol’ Bailey Building & Loan. It has no customer deposits—which are what the access to the discount window was first set up to protect—and you won’t be getting a toaster or a debit card from Goldman Sachs anytime soon.

But being a bank has its rewards. With full access to the discount window, Goldman can now borrow cheaply and massively from the Fed in a pinch, and because of that access, it can borrow more cheaply in the credit markets. It’s a loophole that has allowed Goldman to turn back the clock and once again resume much of its risk-taking activities, only this time it’s being financed by the American taxpayer.

There are, of course, many urban legends about Goldman and how it uses its clout in Washington and in the financial business (both Paulson and another former CEO, Robert Rubin held the Treasury secretary post) to advance its allegedly nefarious corporate agenda.

Recent reports have the firm gaming the energy markets, creating the dot-com bubble, and the subprime-debt crisis that took down Wall Street, and then for a time benefitting from its implosion when it “shorted” subprime-related investments, a trade that allowed the bank to profit from the downward spiral. (Hell, I’m sure there are people who also believe Goldman was somehow behind the swine-flu epidemic to corner the market on drug stocks.)

Some of these stories have a basis in fact and some don’t—I’ll leave it up to the reader to figure this out—but what is true is equally disturbing: Goldman Sachs, which was bailed out by the federal government, is now using the bailout to resume the many of the same risk-taking activities that got it in trouble in the first place.

The question I have, of course, is why is the Obama administration, which has decried corporate greed whenever it’s politically feasible, allowed Goldman all the advantages of a bank, when it is really a big hedge fund?

The Treasury Department won’t say and it’s obvious why Goldman is doing what it is doing: Money, and lots of it. The firm announced Tuesday morning that net income for the second quarter was $3.44 billion, while its biggest rival, Morgan Stanley, is likely to announce a quarterly loss.

And it all comes down to risk, or to be more precise, how much risk Morgan is willing to take on the taxpayers’ dime compared to what Goldman Sachs is now taking. Morgan Stanley’s CEO John Mack, chastened by the firm’s own near-implosion last year when it too was forced to become a bank, has radically reduced the amount of borrowing, or “leverage,” Morgan is taking in trading. People inside the firm say it’s difficult to meet client demands without borrowing money.

Advertisement –> Tampa Web Design | Your Ad Here

“We just can’t get anything done,” said one senior Morgan Stanley executive, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Borrowing to finance trades amplifies gains, but it also amplifies losses when trades go bad. During the first quarter of 2009, Morgan borrowed just $11 for every dollar it had in capital (by comparison during the Wall Street boom, firms borrowed as much as $35 for every dollar in capital), while Goldman borrowed a significantly higher amount—close to $15 for every dollar it has in capital. “Our leverage is the result of risk-taking on behalf of our clients,” Goldman spokesman Lucas van Praag says about the strategy.

And keep in mind this is only for the first quarter. Goldman’s second-quarter leverage is likely much higher given the fact that interest rates have remained remarkably low. Those low interest rates have had another benefit—it has allowed Goldman to make winning bets in the bond markets (bond prices rise when interest rates fall), the same place that decimated Wall Street in 2007 and 2008.

Of course, there are lots of reasons for Goldman’s success. The firm has amazing intellectual capital; some of the smartest people in the world of finance work there. It also knows how to game the system better than any firm on the face of the earth. Case in point: In mid-September 2008, when the world was crashing following Lehman’s bankruptcy, Goldman held $13 billion in highly risky mortgage bonds known as collateralized debt obligations. These bonds were insured by American International Group, which itself was about to go bankrupt.

Without that insurance, Goldman itself would have imploded because the bonds would have been marked down to just pennies on the dollar. The rescue of AIG was supposed to prevent a large-scale crash of the financial system, but it also prevented a crash of Goldman Sachs, which bought those crappy CDOs from Merrill Lynch, which was forced to find a buyer (Bank of America) because it too held the same sludge.

The Goldman purchase of the Merrill CDOs is proof positive that the geniuses at Goldman screw up like everyone else. And I don’t buy van Praag’s spin on the firm’s famous hedges that minimized its losses because the smart money in the markets didn’t at the time. Goldman’s shares were in a freefall, bottoming out at around $50 in the fall of 2008, compared to close to $235 just a year earlier.

Now with all the government help, Goldman is marching its way back up to $235 a share—trading at around $150 Monday—by embracing much of the same risk that nearly led to its demise. It would be nice, though, if the next time Goldman losses money taxpayers didn’t foot the bill.

2009-05-27T09:06:00.000-07:00

Why doesn’t Wired magazine practice what its editor preaches?

By James Ledbetter

Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009

In the late 1960s, two separate groups—the Diggers in San Francisco and the Yippies in New York—began operating
“free stores.” These were places where people could come to get things they needed—food, medicine, clothes, and, in some cases, cash—for free. These were designed simultaneously as parodies of, and alternatives to, the usual American consumer materialism. The stores were not around for very long because (at least in New York) people would come in and simply take everything they could put their hands on. Such predictable incursions were contrary to the spirit of the enterprise, but people who set themselves against market principles are ill-positioned to enforce “limit one per customer.”

Now, four decades later, comes Chris Anderson, editor of Wired and author of The Long Tail, whose new book proclaims that giving things away for free is the “radical” new business model of the future. According to Anderson, there are a variety of ways businesses can and should do this, and once they do, they can charge for other goods and services to make their money. Readers can decide whether they think the model is radical; certainly, Anderson does not claim that it is new, although he does propose applying it in a number of ways that seem unprecedented. Which is odd, since if he followed his own advice he’d be out of a job.

The problem is that—outside of a handful of examples, almost all of which are Internet- or digital-based—giving things away for free does not work, or does not work in any significant way. Here’s why: Just about any activity that merits the title “business” has a cost of producing its goods or services. Take, as a particularly rapacious example, the oil-and-gas business. It costs a huge amount of money to extract petroleum from the ground (in many places, more now than it used to), as well as refining the stuff, storing it, shipping it, and so on. Those costs may or may not justify the price of a barrel of oil or a gallon of gas, but neither do they justify a price of zero.

It’s exceedingly difficult to envision a way in which the oil industry—which, by the way, is fairly large—could recoup its expenses without charging the people who use its product. Presumably, if oil companies owned all the car companies, they could give you a car for free as long as they charged you a lot to fill it up: Although wildly impractical and undesirable in this instance, it is a version of Gillette’s old razor-for-free, charge-you-for-the-blades model. Or gas stations could give you a free plate when you fill up your tank. Neither of those is original or terribly interesting or necessarily very effective. Interestingly, as Anderson notes, Gillette mostly did charge for razors; these days it sells especially expensive razors. Come to think of it, gas stations don’t give away plates anymore, either.

Advertisements–> Atlanta Web Design | Mercado Naples | Bible Covers

Apply this lens to almost any nondigital business—pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, law, banking—and the same problem emerges. Businesses need to recover labor and capital costs, and giving things away for free doesn’t meet that need very well. Anderson makes much of a supposed distinction between an “atoms economy” (you know, stuff) and a “bits economy,” but it really doesn’t help, because “bits” don’t run the economy. Even as Wall Street felt the need to ask Congress for hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, you didn’t see investment banks offering their services for free, and I don’t think that free toasters were going to save Wachovia’s business.

Actually, even in the digital world, there are plenty of cases in which “free” hasn’t worked. Back in the dot-com boom, the Internet services provider NetZero promised “free Internet forever.” The company is still around, sort of, in the form of United Online (UNTD), except that it doesn’t really provide free Internet access anymore, and it doesn’t make money. (Note: UNTD lost money in 2008; as a reader points out below, it had a profitable first quarter in 2009.) Ditto Vonage (VG), a “freemium” voice-over-Internet-protocol phone company that also loses money.

2009-05-15T16:12:00.001-07:00

Fake DHS "photography license" for fake no-photos laws

Posted by Cory Doctorow, May 15, 2009 1:49 AM | permalink

All around the world, cops and rent-a-cops are vigorously enforcing nonexistent anti-terrorist bans on photography in public places. If you're worried about being busted under an imaginary law, why not download these templates and print yourself an imaginary "Photography license" from the DHS? Who knows if it's legal to carry one of these -- probably about as legal as taking away your camera and erasing your memory card for snapping a pic on the subway.

In the event you're stopped by overzealous law enforcement or security officials attempting to enforce fictitious laws, I've designed these fictitious and official-looking Photographer's Licenses. If you have Adobe Illustrator, you can download the EPS vector art file and print your own. You'll need a photo of yourself, and OCR (or a similar font) to fill in your personal information.

2009-05-15T14:07:00.000-07:00

Diamonds pile up worldwide as consumers finally realize their worthlessness.

By ANDREW E. KRAMER May 11, 2009

——————————-

Each day, the contents of the bags spill into the stainless steel hoppers of the receiving room. The diamonds are washed and sorted by size, clarity, shape and quality; then, rather than being sent to be sold around the world, they are wrapped in paper and whisked away to a vault — about three million carats worth of gems every month.

“Each one of them is so unusual,” said Irina V. Tkachuk, one of the few hundred people, mostly women, employed to sort the diamonds, who sees thousands of them every day.

“I’m not a robot. I sometimes think to myself ‘wow, what a pretty diamond. I would like that one.’ They are all so beautiful.”

It could be years before another woman admires that stone. Russia quietly passed a milestone this year: surpassing De Beers as the world’s largest diamond producer. But the global market for diamonds is so dismal that the Alrosa diamond company, 90 percent owned by the Russian government, has not sold a rough stone on the open market since December, and has stockpiled them instead.

As a result, Russia has become the arbiter of global diamond prices. Its decisions on production and sales will determine the value of diamonds on rings and in jewelry stores for years to come, in one of the most surprising consequences of this recession.

Largely because of the jewelry bear market, De Beers’s fortunes have sunk. Short of cash, the company had to raise $800 million from stockholders in just the last six months.

The recession also coincided with a settlement with European Union antitrust authorities that ended a longtime De Beers policy of stockpiling diamonds, in cooperation with Alrosa, to keep prices up.

Though it is a major commodity producer, Russia has traditionally not embraced policies that artificially keep prices up. In oil, for example, Russia benefits from the oil cartel’s cuts in production, but does not participate in them.

Diamonds are an exception. “If you don’t support the price,” Andrei V. Polyakov, a spokesman for Alrosa, said, “a diamond becomes a mere piece of carbon.”

In an attempt to carefully calibrate its re-entry on the global market, without forcing prices still lower, Russia is relying on two things: the Soviet-era precious gem depository — created to hold jewelry confiscated from the aristocracy after the 1917 revolution — and capitalist investors, whom Alrosa hopes will buy diamonds as an investment, like gold.

Russia is taking a leadership role in other ways, too.

Sponsored Ads: Naples Computers | Bonita Springs Condos | Naples Direct Mail

Sergei Vybornov, Alrosa’s chief executive, said that he had helped persuade the central bank of Angola — which, like Russia, is still relatively flush with oil money — to buy 30 percent of the production of Angola’s diamond mines, keeping these stones off the market.

And last fall, Alrosa began what it called the St. Petersburg Initiative, along with De Beers and other large producers, to invest collectively in generic diamond advertising, akin to De Beers’s promotion of the slogan “Diamonds are forever.” Russia assumed the task as De Beers has principally shifted to promoting its own branded gems.

Still, it is a precarious time for the Russian diamond company to assume leadership of the industry.

Until last year, De Beers produced about 40 percent of the global rough stone supply, and Alrosa 25 percent. But De Beers, which is prohibited under its European Union antitrust agreement from stockpiling, closed mines in response to the glut in rough stones. Russia is loath to do that, as authorities in Moscow, gravely concerned about potential unrest by disgruntled unemployed workers, try to keep workers on the payroll.

In the first quarter, De Beers reduced output by 91 percent compared with the previous year. The diversified mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton also curbed production.

Meanwhile, the market for wholesale polished diamonds, worth about $21.5 billion, is expected to fall to about $12 billion in 2009, according to Polished Prices, an analytical service for the industry.

Rough diamond prices have fallen even more, as much as 75 percent since their peak last July at some auctions.

The two markets are distinct. Typically, about 60 percent of a rough diamond is lost as dust or shavings in the cutting process.

Mr. Vybornov blames diamond traders who pledged diamond stocks as loan collateral for part of the world glut. When credit dried up last fall, banks and other creditors seized those gems and sold them, he says, flooding the market. By December, his company decided to withdraw entirely from the market rather than further erode prices.

Russia historically remained mostly a behind-the-scenes player, perhaps because Soviet authorities would have had to perform some ideological gymnastics to promote a product consumed principally by the rich of the capitalist world.

Instead, twisting politics, the Soviets concluded a semisecret agreement with apartheid-era De Beers to sell Siberian diamonds in a way that would not undercut the market.

Sponsored Ads: Bible Covers | Naples Carpet | Tampa Ultrasounds

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian diamond industry created a formal alliance with De Beers, selling the South African company half of each year’s production at a discount intended to subsidize De Beers’s generic diamond advertising undertaken in the 1990s, mostly in the United States.

Now, the Russians are in the driver’s seat.

Charles Wyndham, a former De Beers evaluator and co-founder of Polished Prices, said Russia had thus far managed the transition well: withholding gems to make more money in the long run rather than further depressing the market.

“Whatever one wants to say about the Russians, they certainly aren’t stupid,” Mr. Wyndham said.

Alrosa is seeking to jump-start demand by selling gems under long-term contracts to wholesale buyers in Belgium, Israel, India and elsewhere. Under these contracts, six of which have been signed, prices are set at a midpoint between the peak last August and this winter, and fixed for a period of several years.

“A diamond ring should not cost $100,” Mr. Vybornov said. “We don’t want that type of client.”

Alrosa is also working with a Moscow investment bank, Leader, a subsidiary of the Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom, to market diamonds to investors. Under the plan, investors would buy diamonds but the gems would not be released to jewelers for several years.

It is a program, essentially, of outsourcing the stockpiling function to investors in exchange for the chance to profit from a possible recovery in the market.

At one of Alrosa’s cutting shops in one of Moscow’s outer districts, Aleksandr A. Malinin, an adviser to the president of Alrosa, showed a typical collection that might become the basis for such an investment vehicle.

The gems fit in a felt box about the size of a laptop computer.

The larger stones, a circular-cut 10 carat flawless white and a princess-cut yellow, were estimated at about $400,000. The smaller ones ranged from $16,000 to $100,000. But the value of the box, while surely several million dollars, is something of a mystery just now given the depressed market.

How the buy-in price for the stones will be set, and how the company will determine when the price goes up and down, is unclear, Mr. Malinin said.

“We have to tell people that diamonds are valuable,” he said. “We are trying to maintain the price, just as De Beers did, as all diamond producing countries do. But what we are doing is selling an illusion,” meaning a product with no utility and a price that depends on the continued sense of scarcity where there is none.

At the Alrosa unit that receives diamonds, called the United Selling Organization, where about 90 percent of the output of the Siberian mines arrives for processing, Elena V. Kapustkina pours about 45,000 carats of diamonds though a stainless steel sieve every day to sort them by size.

“It’s just a job,” she said.

When asked whether diamonds had lost their romance for her, Ms. Kapustkina paused, looked down at the pile of gems on her table and blushed.

In fact, she said, her husband, a truck driver, gave her a half-carat ring 22 years ago. “Of course I love it,” she said. “It’s from my husband.”

2008-01-20T10:18:00.000-08:00

I don't even remember creating this blog, but it was in my Google account and it's a PR2, I'll certainly take it! :)

I'm just making this post to drop a link to Naples SEO I made the blog and will use it to take the top result for Naples SEO terms. I sold my websites and closed my hosting, so I will use Google as my host and website :)

pic of Aqua Teen "terrorists" laughing in court

2007-03-02T10:04:00.001-08:00

Honestly, God Bless these guys, the picture says it all. This thing was harmless and the Boston authorities over reacted, the news stretched the truth (what panic exactly?), and these poor guys get charged. Digg this to the top in support of Sean and Peter.

read more | digg story

2006-09-18T22:32:00.000-07:00

Just some videos I gathered up, reminding us of exactly what we are up against.
The people below, are these the people you demand have Geneva Convention rights? Are these the people that are being "tortured" by listening to the red hot chili peppers? Time to wake up and get real guys, enough with the PC bullshit.

The towers are hit.

Palestinians Celebrate 9-11-2001

Muslims Threaten and Preach Death over silly cartoons

The wonderful religion of peace, teaching to hate...er...I mean love

A mother sending her son to die via jihad

Women shouldn't be allowed to drive! It's actually oppressive and cruel to let them drive! It exploits them! DUH...

Beating your wife, it actually preserves family values in case you didn't know, silly.

Muslim Sesame Street: "A" is for Angels, "S" for Suicide