Archive for the ‘Finance’ Category

Baby Formula

Friday, June 29th, 2012

Equation for The Meaning Of Live

Ironically, the Brouses coined the phrase “In God We Trust” for the United States Mint.

What is the meaning of life? What makes man different from other animals?

Baby Formula: Equation for the Meaning of Life .mp4 Video



Australia Carbon Tax

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

On July 1, 2012 Australia will impose a price on carbon emissions.

A price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and economically efficient way to reduce pollution. This means our economy can continue to prosper – without our pollution continuing to grow. The Government’s plan for a clean energy future includes four key components. Firstly, the establishment of a carbon price. Secondly, support for renewable energy. Thirdly, to support improvements in energy efficiency. And fourthly, to store carbon through changed land-use practices. So, they’re the four key foundations, if you like, of our plan for a clean energy future. A carbon price has got a very important role to play because it puts a price tag on pollution. For the first time in our economy, the largest polluters will have to pay a price for every tonne of pollution that they put into the atmosphere, and that creates the incentive to cut pollution and it also creates the pressure to innovate, the pressure to invest in cleaner energy sources. And that’ll be very important for the future of our country and our economy and our living standards, because it’s the countries in the 21st century that have innovated and that have got clean energy as a key part of their economic future that will be the most competitive, and that’s very important for our future as well.

More on Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade and Emissions Trading
More on Global Warming and Climate Change

Questions Answered

Q. Where will the money raised from the carbon price go?

A.

More than half of the money raised will be used to assist households. The majority of households will receive tax cuts, increased assistance payments  or both. With the rest of the money, the Government will be supporting jobs in the most affected industries and investing in our clean energy future. Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

Q. Will I have to pay the carbon price?

A.

No, it’s not a tax on households or small businesses - Australia’s biggest polluters will be required to pay for their pollution under the carbon pricing mechanism. They account for around 60 per cent of our carbon pollution. For more information on Australia’s biggest polluters. Find more questions about: Carbon Price , Household / Family

An environmental problem with an economic solution

Putting a price on carbon is the most environmentally effective and cheapest way to cut pollution. This is a fact that is well recognized by economists from around the world, and respected institutions such as the OECD and the Productivity Commission. Currently, releasing carbon pollution is free despite the fact that it is harming our environment. A carbon price changes this. It puts a price on the carbon pollution that Australia’s largest polluters produce. This creates a powerful incentive for all businesses to cut their pollution, by investing in clean technology or finding more efficient ways of operating. It encourages businesses across all industries to find the cheapest and most effective way of reducing carbon pollution, rather than relying on more costly approaches such as government regulation and direct action.

A carbon price means a strong and growing economy

The economy will continue to grow as Australia embraces a clean energy future. Treasury modelling estimates that under a carbon price:

  • Average incomes grow strongly under a carbon price. Average incomes are expected to increase by about 16 per cent from current levels by 2020, an increase of around $9000 in today’s dollars. By 2050, the increase is expected to be more than $30,000.
  • National employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020.


Breaking the link between emissions and economic growth

The carbon price is the first element of the Government’s plan for a clean energy future: it will trigger a broad transformation of the economy. Our economy has successfully handled comparable structural changes over its history. In fact, transformative changes – new products and technologies, and the integration of our economy into the global economy set in train by the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s – have underpinned rising prosperity and sustainable growth in Australia. Treasury modelling shows that, under a carbon price, the economy continues to grow.

Figure 1: Gross National Income with and without the carbon price

Breaking the link between emissions and economic growth For more information see: Chapter 3 – Putting a price on carbon pollution. For further details about a carbon price see:

↑ Back to Top

Education In The Western World

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

“We have not come here to be lectured on our inadequacies.”
– the Europeans

Mortgage Bankers Paying for Fraud and Crimes

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

Even foreign companies have to pay for crimes committed in the good ole US of A.

HUD, HUD INSPECTOR GENERAL AND U.S. ATTORNEY ANNOUNCE
$202 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH DEUTSCHE BANK AND MORTGAGEIT
Civil Fraud case alleged reckless mortgage lending and false claims

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Stuart F. Delery, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Helen Kanovsky, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and David A. Montoya, Inspector General of HUD, announced today that the United States has settled a civil fraud lawsuit against DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. (collectively “DEUTSCHE BANK” or the “DEUTSCHE BANK defendants”) and MORTGAGEIT, INC. (“MORTGAGEIT”).

The Government’s lawsuit, filed May 3, 2011, sought damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD in connection with the residential mortgage origination practices of MORTGAGEIT, a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEUTSCHE BANK AG since 2007. The suit alleges approximately a decade of misconduct in connection with MORTGAGEIT’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA’s”) Direct Endorsement Lender Program (“DEL program”), which delegates authority to participating private lenders to endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. Among other things, the suit accused the defendants of having submitted false certifications to HUD, including false certifications that MORTGAGEIT was originating mortgages in compliance with HUD rules when in fact it was not. In the settlement announced today, MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Complaint, including that, contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

MORTGAGEIT also admitted that it submitted certifications to HUD stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; that FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and that HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted. The defendants also agreed to pay $202.3 million to the United States to resolve the Government’s claims for damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. The settlement was approved today by United States District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated: “MORTGAGEIT and DEUTSCHE BANK treated FHA insurance as free Government money to backstop lending practices that did not follow the rules. Participation in the Direct Endorsement Lender program comes with requirements that are not mere technicalities to be circumvented through subterfuge as these defendants did repeatedly over the course of a decade. Their failure to meet these requirements caused substantial losses to the Government – losses that could have and should have been avoided. In addition to their admissions of responsibility, Deutsche Bank and MortgageIT have agreed to pay damages in an amount that will significantly compensate HUD for the losses it incurred as a result of the defendants’ actions.”

Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery stated: “This is an important settlement for the United States, both in terms of obtaining substantial reimbursement for the FHA insurance fund for wrongfully incurred claims, and in obtaining the defendants’ acceptance of their role in the losses they caused to the taxpayers.”

HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky stated: “This case demonstrates that HUD has the ability to identify fraud patterns and work with our partners at the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to pursue appropriate remedies. HUD would like to commend the work of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in achieving this settlement, which is a substantial recovery for the FHA mortgage insurance fund. We look forward to continuing our joint efforts with the Department of Justice and the SDNY to combat mortgage fraud. The mortgage industry should take notice that we will not sit silently by if we detect abuses in our programs.

HUD Inspector General David A. Montoya stated: “We expect every Direct Endorsement Lender to adhere to the highest level of integrity and accountability. When the combined efforts and attention of the Department of Justice, HUD, and HUD OIG are focused upon those who fail to exercise such integrity in connection with HUD programs, the end result will be both unpleasant and costly to the offending party.

The following allegations are based on the Complaint and Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in Manhattan federal court by the Government in this case:

Between 1999 and 2009, MORTGAGEIT was a participant in the DEL program, a federal program administered by the FHA. As a Direct Endorsement Lender, MORTGAGEIT had the authority to originate, underwrite, and endorse mortgages for FHA insurance. If a Direct Endorsement Lender approves a mortgage loan for FHA insurance and the loan later defaults, the holder of the loan may submit an insurance claim to HUD for the costs associated with the defaulted loan, which HUD must then pay. Under the DEL program, neither the FHA nor HUD reviews a loan before it is endorsed for FHA insurance. Direct Endorsement Lenders are therefore required to follow program rules designed to ensure that they are properly underwriting and endorsing mortgages for FHA insurance and maintaining a quality control program that can prevent and correct any deficiencies in their underwriting. These requirements include maintaining a quality control program, pursuant to which the lender must fully review all loans that go into default within the first six payments, known as “early payment defaults.” Early payment defaults may be signs of problems in the underwriting process, and by reviewing early payment defaults, Direct Endorsement Lenders are able to monitor those problems, correct them, and report them to HUD. MORTGAGEIT failed to comply with these basic requirements.

As the Complaint further alleges, MORTGAGEIT was also required to execute certifications for every mortgage loan that it endorsed for FHA insurance. Since 1999, MORTGAGEIT has endorsed more than 39,000 mortgages for FHA insurance, and FHA paid insurance claims on more than 3,200 mortgages, totaling more than $368 million, for mortgages endorsed for FHA insurance by MORTGAGEIT, including more than $58 million resulting from loans that defaulted after DEUTSCHE BANK AG acquired MORTGAGEIT in 2007. As alleged in the Complaint, a portion of those losses was caused by the false statements that the defendants made to HUD to obtain FHA insurance on individual loans. Although MORTGAGEIT had certified that each of these loans was eligible for FHA insurance, it repeatedly submitted certifications that were knowingly or recklessly false. MORTGAGEIT failed to perform basic due diligence and repeatedly endorsed mortgage loans that were not eligible for FHA insurance.

The Complaint also alleges that MORTGAGEIT separately certified to HUD, on an annual basis, that it was in compliance with the rules governing its eligibility in the DEL program, including that it conduct a full review of all early payment defaults, as early payment defaults are indicators of mortgage fraud. Contrary to its certifications to HUD, MORTGAGEIT failed to implement a compliant quality control program, and failed to review all early payment defaults as required. In addition, the Complaint alleges that, after DEUTSCHE BANK acquired MORTGAGEIT in January 2007, DEUTSCHE BANK managed the quality control functions of the Direct Endorsement Lender business, and had its employees sign and submit MORTGAGEIT’s Direct Endorsement Lender annual certifications to HUD. Furthermore, by the end of 2007, MORTGAGEIT was not reviewing any early payment defaults on closed FHA-insured loans. Between 1999 and 2009, the FHA paid more than $92 million in FHA insurance claims for loans that defaulted within the first six payments.

***

Pursuant to the settlement, MORTGAGEIT and the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants will pay the United States $202.3 million within 30 days of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, the defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for certain misconduct. Specifically,

MORTGAGEIT admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the following:

MORTGAGEIT failed to conform fully to HUD-FHA rules requiring Direct Endorsement Lenders to maintain a compliant quality control program;
MORTGAGEIT failed to conduct a full review of all early payment defaults on loans endorsed for FHA insurance;
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations;
MORTGAGEIT endorsed for FHA mortgage insurance certain loans that did not meet all underwriting requirements contained in HUD’s handbooks and mortgagee letters, and therefore were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance under the DEL program; and
MORTGAGEIT submitted to HUD-FHA certifications stating that certain loans were eligible for FHA mortgage insurance when in fact they were not; FHA insured certain loans endorsed by MORTGAGEIT that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance; and HUD consequently incurred losses when some of those MORTGAGEIT loans defaulted.
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for the fact that after MORTGAGEIT became a wholly-owned, indirect subsidiary of DB Structured Products, Inc and Deutsche Bank AG in January 2007:
The DEUTSCHE BANK defendants were in a position to know that the operations of MORTGAGEIT did not conform fully to all of HUD-FHA’s regulations, policies, and handbooks;
One or more of the annual certifications was signed by an individual who was also an officer of certain of the DEUTSCHE BANK defendants; and
Contrary to the representations in MORTGAGEIT’s annual certifications, MORTGAGEIT did not conform to all applicable HUD-FHA regulations.

* * *

The case is being handled by the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit. Mr. Bharara established the Civil Frauds Unit in March 2010 to bring renewed focus and additional resources to combating financial fraud, including mortgage fraud.

To date, the Office’s Civil Frauds Unit has brought four civil fraud lawsuits against major lenders under the False Claims Act alleging reckless residential mortgage lending. Three of the four cases have settled, and today’s settlement represents the third, and largest, settlement. On February 15, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud lawsuit against CITIMORTGAGE, INC. for $158.3 million. On February 24, 2012, the Government settled its civil fraud suit against FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B. for $132.8 million. The Government’s lawsuit against ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORP. and two of its officers remains pending. With today’s settlement, the Government has achieved settlements totaling $493.4 million in the last three months. In each settlement, the defendants have admitted and accepted responsibility for certain conduct alleged in the Government’s Complaint. The Office’s Civil Frauds Unit is handling all three cases as part of its continuing investigation of reckless lending practices.

The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Mr. Bharara thanked HUD and HUD-OIG for their extraordinary assistance in this case. He also expressed his appreciation for the support of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division in Washington, D.C.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lara K. Eshkenazi, Pierre G. Armand, and Christopher B. Harwood are in charge of the case.

British Invasion 2012: Stockholder Revolt and Investor Protests

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

Occupy Wall Street may want to wake-up and take notice of how to effectively protest and change corporate misbehavior. The bloody limey are taking over the pay of top executives.

Mining company Xstrata, hedge fund Man Group, banks Credit Suisse, UBS and Barclays have had significant *NO* votes on remuneration packages. Today, they ousted the CEO of Aviva.

The London Dow Jones office reports, “Aviva became the fourth FTSE 100 company ever to have its remuneration report rejected, and Tuesday the British insurance group said that Chief Executive Moss, whose GBP2.69 million pay packet was also rejected in the non-binding vote, would stand down with immediate effect.”

No FaceBook Ads On My Page

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

PHILADELPHIA, PA — One of the pioneers of the world wide web has come out against the advertising practices of FaceBook.

The primary reason: “Sponsors violate you (as well as, your friends) privacy and security.  In a criminal sense, Sponsors (in conspiracy with FaceBook)  violate basic human rights.  Not only is it a crime in the United States of America, it is recognized as an international crime.”

* Did you know your name shows up under sponsored links?
* Did you know you expose your friends through sponsored links?

WARNING: If you are a FaceBook user, make certain that you understand the privacy settings.  They are purposely set to violate you.

LETTER TO MY FRIENDS:

Dear Friends,
FaceBook is getting ready to sell your content. How much are they paying you? I suggest not. Have you seen this?

Facebook’s IPO Priced Up to $35, Seeks to Raise $13.6B
www.pcmag.com

Facebook said Thursday that it set the price for its public offering at between
Dear FaceBook Sponsors: I intend to report on your bad practices. I plan on pointing out how stupid sponsors are for putting ads on my page and point out how you are getting tricked out of money.  Therefore, I suggest you do not advertise on my personal page.

RESPONSE TO INPUT:

      • Daniel Brouse seth, more importantly… i do not like what facebook is about to do to my musician and IP (intellectual property right owner) friends. in about two weeks, they are going to sell all their facebook content and keep the money. for shame!
      • oh yeah, and for the kids out there.. under 18… special laws apply to your privacy.
      • did you know the IRS and health insurance companies will audit your facebook posts? (just to name a couple concerns)
      • salt in the wound: a goodly portion of the facebook IPO proceeds for your intellectual property is being raised to pay Mark Zuckerberg’s tax bill on the money he stole from you.

Just Say No To Taxes

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

by Daniel Brouse

I suggested that there should be little (to no) taxes.

You responded:
How does any of this function
without taxation…?
I would like to know your thinking on this…
it doesn’t seem to be working now
and sure doesn’t favor poor to middle class…
but I think this is too long to write?

I respond:
There are a few ways one can look upon it. Here are two of the shorter versions –

1) Evolution
In the beginning there was Adam and Lilith. There were no taxes. For more generations than I can count, the world got along fine without taxes. In fact, humans prospered in the Garden Of Edan without taxation until we evolved into corrupt beings.

2) Exploitation And Corruption
An economic evaluation of taxation reveals a costs and benefits shutout. That is to say, there are no known benefits to taxation. On the other hand, there are at least a trillion costs to taxing (see the National Deficit for a an exhaustive list.) A small sampling includes…
The cost of taxing productive people
The cost of corruption inherent in collecting money
The cost of additional bureaucracy
The cost of removing the efficiency inherent in the competition of the free market place

You may want to think of it this way… every adult in the USA owes about $42,614.99 just for the Iraq War. (And, that is if we pay off the debt today. Oh, yeah. The cost of life and limb is not included.)

Next time, in order to be fair to everyone… maybe we should be required to pay the tax in advance… instead of 1% of the population footing 40% of the bill?

Additional resources: Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Yourself

Attack On Occupy Philly

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011


Occupy Philadelphia Reply to the Mayor

Monday, November 14th, 2011

Press Conference at Occupy Philly
November 14, 2011
~ 1PM
by Daniel Brouse

CITY HALL, PHILADELPHIA, PA
On November 13, 2011, Philadelphia’s Mayor Nutter held a press conference changing his posture on the Occupy Philadelphia movement. During the show, he reversed his position on the protesters being allowed to obtain a new permit when the current permit expires on the 15th. Following is the response from the Occupy Philly Press Team:

YouTube HD Video: Occupy Philadelphia Press Conference Reply to Mayor Nutter

YouTube Low-Def Video: Occupy Philadelphia Press Conference Reply to Mayor Nutter (Shooting the Press)

Jesse Jackson on Joe Frazier at Occupy Philly

Sunday, November 13th, 2011

CITY HALL, PHILADELPHIA, PA
November 13, 2011
by Daniel Brouse

The infamous Jesse Jackson visited the Occupy Philly encampment to show his support. In town for the Joe Frazier funeral, Rev. Jackson advocated for a Joe Frazier statue. Saying that Rocky Balboa is a fictitious character, he encouraged a monument be dedicated to a true hero of the working class.

YouTube Video Interviews with Jesse Jackson





Home | Contact Us | Internet & Advertising Services