HCA Must Pay Kansas City Foundation $162 Million





HCA, the nation’s largest profit-making hospital chain, was ordered on Thursday to pay $162 million after a judge in Missouri ruled that it had failed to abide by an agreement to make improvements to dilapidated hospitals that it bought in the Kansas City area several years ago.




The judge also ordered a court-appointed accountant to determine whether HCA had actually provided the levels of charitable care that it agreed to at the time.


The ruling came in response to a suit filed in 2009 by a community foundation that was created when HCA acquired the hospitals. Among other things, the foundation was responsible for ensuring that HCA met the obligations outlined in the deal.


The dispute in Kansas City is the second time in recent years that HCA has come under legal fire from officials in communities that sold troubled nonprofit community hospitals to HCA.


In another dispute in New Hampshire in 2011, a judge ruled in HCA’s favor, deciding that Portsmouth Regional Hospital would remain part of HCA after community leaders tried to regain control. During testimony in a 2011 trial, a former hospital official claimed he had difficulties getting HCA to pay for what he and others described as critical equipment and facility upgrades.


In an e-mailed statement, a spokesman for HCA said the company was disappointed in the court’s ruling and intended to appeal. He also added that the two cases were “rare exceptions” and that the company had enjoyed positive relationships with communities across the country.


The suit is among several problems for HCA. The company disclosed last year, for example, that the United States attorney’s office in Miami had subpoenaed documents as part of an inquiry to determine whether unnecessary cardiology procedures had been performed at HCA hospitals in Florida and elsewhere. At stake in that case is whether HCA inappropriately billed Medicare and private insurers for the procedures. HCA has denied any wrongdoing.


Financially, Thursday’s judgment is a slap on the wrist for HCA, which posted net income of $360 million in just the third quarter of last year. But the ruling may reverberate beyond HCA as communities across the country put their troubled nonprofit hospitals up for sale.


In many cases, the buyers with the deepest pockets have been profit-making hospital chains that want to convert the community hospitals to profit status, typically agreeing to spend money to fix them and to maintain certain levels of charitable care in the community.


In 2011, for instance, Vanguard Health Systems, which went public that year and has as its largest shareholder the private equity firm Blackstone Group, bought eight hospitals in Detroit. As part of that deal, Vanguard Health agreed to spend $850 million over five years to fix and maintain the hospitals.


The trouble in the Kansas City area began a year after HCA acquired a dozen hospitals from Health Midwest in 2003 for $1.125 billion. As part of the deal, HCA agreed to make $300 million in capital improvements in the first two years and an additional $150 million in the following three. The hospital chain also agreed to maintain the levels of care that had been provided to low-income individuals and families in the area for 10 years.


But when the members of the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City, a nonprofit created from the proceeds of the sale of the hospital, received their first report from HCA in 2004 they discovered the hospital was already way behind.


Of the $300 million it was supposed to spend in the first two years, its own documents showed it had spent only about $50 million, according to Mark G. Flaherty, one of the founding members of the foundation and its general counsel.


HCA’s reports to the foundation also indicated that the level of charitable care it provided at the system’s large inner-city hospital had fallen while charitable care provided at the more affluent suburban hospital had risen sharply, Mr. Flaherty said.


“That was a big red flag to us,” he said.


After repeatedly asking HCA executives for explanations but receiving none, the foundation sued HCA in 2009. The case went to trial for several weeks in 2011.


HCA argued in the trial that it had met its obligation to spend money on hospital facilities by building two new hospitals at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than repairing older facilities. But Judge John Torrence of Jackson County Circuit Court ruled that the agreement called for improvements to existing hospitals.


He said HCA still owed $162 million of the $300 million it had agreed to spend between 2003 and 2005. He then named a court-appointed forensic accountant to determine whether HCA had met its other capital commitments and whether it provided the charitable care it had said it would.


HCA’s own written statements claimed “differing amounts,” the judge wrote in his ruling. One HCA report said it provided $48 million in charitable care to the area in 2009 while another report on its Web site said it provided more than $87 million. The annual report to the foundation claimed it provided $185 million in uncompensated and charity care that year, the judge wrote.


During the trial, when asked about the widely differing numbers, the president of HCA’s Midwest division and other HCA executives had no explanation.


The money will be paid to the foundation, which will use it to create grants to provide care for uninsured or underinsured families in the area. It is unclear whether the spending on improvements will occur.


Depending on what the court-appointed accountant discovers, HCA may owe even more money, said Paul Seyferth of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris, which represents the foundation.


“We think they’re going to have a tremendously difficult time convincing anybody that they spent what they claim they spent,” Mr. Seyferth said.


Read More..

Ki Suh Park dies at 80; architect helped rebuild L.A. after riots









From rubble and wreckage, Ki Suh Park often saw possibility. It was so as he stood amid the destruction of the Korean War, when he resolved to study architecture and help rebuild his homeland. And it was so as he drove down Western Avenue after the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when he vowed to help rebuild a community after the violence that wracked his adopted home.


Park, an architect who rose to become a leader in the city's Korean American community, died Jan. 16 at Stanford University Medical Center after a four-year battle with pancreatic cancer, his family said. He was 80.


Antonia Hernandez, an immigrant rights activist who served with him on Rebuild L.A., a campaign to help rebuild and revitalize riot-stricken areas, credits Park with representing the Korean community while encouraging consensus during a time when tensions were still raw.





"Ki Suh gave voice to these people and their concerns, their anger, their frustration, but he did it in a way that didn't add to the tension and the confrontation," Hernandez said this week in an interview with The Times.


Park loved the vibrancy and diversity of Los Angeles, and often said that the city gave him energy. He delighted in the concept of Korean tacos. "Only in America, only in L.A.," he would tell friends.


His journey to both places began with a letter.


Ki Suh Park was born March 15, 1932, in Seoul, Korea, the second of nine children of Seung Man Park, an agricultural geneticist, and Haechung Im Park, a schoolteacher. Park lived with relatives to continue his studies in Seoul after his parents left to find work.


As the Korean War began, Park was 18 and feared he'd be forced to join invading communist forces. He went into hiding.


"Guests are coming," his grandparents would warn as soldiers approached, and he and his sister would scramble to take cover behind furniture. Eventually, he made his way to Pusan, where he worked as a translator for the U.S. Joint Advisory Command.


When he told U.S. soldiers about his dreams of studying abroad, they encouraged him to write to American newspapers seeking sponsorship. He did, and the Los Angeles Times printed his letter on May 5, 1952.


"I am anxious to continue an education in the United States in order to be of value to the rebuilding of Korea," he wrote.


His words caught the interest of a number of luminaries, including illustrator Norman Rockwell and author James Michener. In the end, a friend of Rockwell's, a Montebello family, and an Indiana congressman helped Park immigrate. He even shook hands with future presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy.


"Today, Korea's buildings are broken and destroyed," a 21-year-old Park told The Times upon his arrival in March 1953. "But one day the war in Korea will be over. Then Korea will rebuild. I want to take part in rebuilding it."


But Park never would return to live in Korea, becoming an American citizen instead. He studied at East L.A. College and then UC Berkeley, where met and married his wife, Ildong. He graduated in 1957, a Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree in architecture, and went on to earn graduate degrees in architecture and city planning at MIT. He became a father, an architect, and soon, an Angeleno.


In 1961, Gruen Associates, a prominent architecture firm in Los Angeles, hired Park at a time when few firms had Asian Americans in their ranks. Early on, he and his family lived a simple life in an apartment on Westmoreland Avenue, near downtown. Often, he would come home, have dinner, and go back to the office to keep working.


"I had such faith in the future," Park told The Times in 1994. "Faith that if I work really hard and do my best, opportunity will open up for me and that's what attracted me to come to this country. I still believe that."


By the time he became a partner at Gruen in 1972, Park had earned a reputation for exacting standards and perfectionism. Anyone who worked with Park remembers toiling for hours on a drawing or memo, only to have it returned with typos and errors highlighted.


Thom Mayne, who worked under Park before becoming a premier architect, remembers the demands Park put on others, and on himself. "He just moved at the speed of light. He moved the way his brain moved. If you didn't move there with him, that was your problem," said Mayne, adding that Park influenced the way he runs his Morphosis practice today.


Park, who rose to managing partner of Gruen in 1981, oversaw a number of landmark Los Angeles projects, including the expansion of the Los Angeles Convention Center (along with Pei Cobb Freed and Partners), the planning and design of the 105 Freeway, the Koreatown Plaza, the Segerstrom Concert Hall in Orange County, and planning for the Metro Gold and Orange lines. The convention center and the 105 Freeway, in particular, were "urban environment game-changers," said Michael Enomoto, Gruen's current managing partner, who worked with Park for 40 years.


Park became known for the way he handled complex, multifaceted projects. During the contentious talks over the path of the 105 Freeway through a swath of urban neighborhoods, Park was credited with listening to residents' concerns about displacement and the effects on surrounding communities. He received plaudits for his work, becoming the first Korean American to be named to the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in 1986.


Park also served on the boards of the county's Natural History Museum, the Korean American Museum in Koreatown and the California Community Foundation, among other civic organizations, insisting on the same high standards.


He approached his Rebuild L.A. efforts with the same seriousness, working to find common ground among Korean store owners and African American community members. "Our survival and the future of the city depend on it," he said. "The whole world lives in this city, and if we can make it happen, this can be the model for the future of the entire world."


Twenty years later, the measure of Rebuild L.A.'s successes is mixed.


"Sometimes, I feel like a tiny grain of sand," he told The Times in 1994. "But you can't remake the world overnight or remake the city overnight."


But always, he maintained faith in progress. "How do you know where you are in the ocean unless you have a benchmark?" he once told The Times.


For him, Park often said, his life's benchmarks were his children. His three sons attended UCLA, Harvard and Princeton. Two became lawyers, one a doctor. He is survived by his wife of 56 years, Ildong Park; sons David, Kevin and Edwin; four grandchildren and six siblings.


A memorial service will be held Thursday at 11 a.m. at the Westwood United Methodist Church, 10497 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles.


christine.maiduc@latimes.com





Read More..

CEO Tim Cook Hints at Apple's Future Growth in Q1 Earnings Call



Investors may have cringed at Apple’s revenue numbers in its Q1 2013 earnings call, but CEO Tim Cook took pains to point out that there is still a lot of room for growth when it comes to Apple product sales and profits.


There are a number of different ways Apple could continue to expand iPhone and iPad growth: introducing lower-priced options for emerging markets, bringing major changes to its product lines, or focusing on expanding to new geographic regions. For now, Apple seems to be focusing on the latter.


Although Apple has deeply embedded itself among U.S. mobile consumers, its presence abroad has been more slow going. And as with the past few quarters, that appears to be changing, particularly in China. “In terms of geographic distribution, we saw highest growth in China, and it was into the triple digits,” Cook said. Given that China is the world’s largest smartphone market, that’s the place you want it to happen and one of the few markets in the world that can keep the Apple growth machine humming.


Apple has had a difficult time in some emerging markets because of the iPhone’s high up-front cost. Other smartphone manufacturers like Samsung and Nokia have been aiming lower-end devices at these segments, but Apple’s only option is to flog its spendy iPhones. In China at least, buyers don’t seem to be put off by, something to which Cook was keen to draw attention. “It’s interesting to see how China is growing in importance for Apple so much so that they broke out their revenue [in its earnings release],” Gartner analyst Carolina Milanesi told Wired.


Uncharacteristically, Cook also drew attention to recent rumors circulating that iPhone demand could be waning due to reduced orders for iPhone 5 parts, gossip that fueled drops in Apple’s stock prices last week. Apple typically does not comment on rumors or reports.


“There have been lots of rumors about order cuts and so forth. Let me take a moment to make a comment on this,” Cook said in response to a question asking about the iPhone’s reported “deterioration in demand.” “I would suggest it’s good to question the accuracy of any kind of rumor about build plans… Even if a particular data point were factual, it would be impossible to accurately interpret what the data point meant for our overall business because the supply chain is very complex.”


And what about all those pesky other handsets available in a rainbow of screen sizes? Are those affecting iPhone sales, or will Apple ever expand to other screen sizes? Cook took a decidedly Steve Jobs (and Apple) approach, saying, “We put a lot of thinking into screen size and believe we picked the right one.” For years 3.5-inches was the right size, but in 2012 and 2013, the 4-inch display of the iPhone 5 is now Apple’s perfect phone size. It’s large enough to provide the user with a greater amount of information on screen (and make watching videos more pleasant), but not so large that it affects your ability to operate it with one hand.


As far as the iPad is concerned, the Windows-dominated PC space continues to be the area Apple hopes its slate will infiltrate. Although Cook openly acknowledged the iPad mini is likely cannibalized some iPad sales, and the iPad some Mac sales, he said that the Mac market is far smaller than that of Windows, and it’s out of Microsoft and its partners where the iPad will continue to take a chunk in the coming years.


“It is clear [the iPad] is already cannibalizing [Windows] some,” Cook said. “There’s a tremendous amount (of) opportunity there. I’ve said for two or three years now that the tablet market will be larger than the PC market at some point. You can see by the growth in tablets and pressure on PCs that those lines are beginning to converge.”


Now, if Cook can just get the line on his stock chart to move in the right direction.


Read More..

Obama inauguration TV viewership down by 17.2 million from 2009






LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Some 20.6 million Americans watched President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony and related events on television, according to ratings data on Wednesday. That’s down sharply from his first inauguration in 2009.


TV ratings company Nielsen said 18 U.S. television networks and cable channels carried live coverage over about six hours of Monday’s swearing-in ceremony, speech and parade in Washington.






Monday’s TV audience was a drop of 17.2 million from 2009, when 37.8 million Americans – the highest number since Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration – watched Obama formally take office as the first black president in U.S. history.


The Nielsen figures did not measure viewers who watched Monday’s daylong ceremonies online via live streaming on many TV channels, nor overseas audiences.


Second-term inaugurations of U.S. presidents have traditionally drawn smaller numbers of viewers than those for first terms.


Reagan’s 1981 inauguration drew the biggest television audience of the past 44 years, attracting some 41.8 million U.S. viewers, according to Nielsen.


(Reporting By Jill Serjeant; Editing by Bill Trott)


TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News





Title Post: Obama inauguration TV viewership down by 17.2 million from 2009
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/obama-inauguration-tv-viewership-down-by-17-2-million-from-2009/
Link To Post : Obama inauguration TV viewership down by 17.2 million from 2009
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Well: Long Term Effects on Life Expectancy From Smoking

It is often said that smoking takes years off your life, and now a new study shows just how many: Longtime smokers can expect to lose about 10 years of life expectancy.

But amid those grim findings was some good news for former smokers. Those who quit before they turn 35 can gain most if not all of that decade back, and even those who wait until middle age to kick the habit can add about five years back to their life expectancies.

“There’s the old saw that everyone knows smoking is bad for you,” said Dr. Tim McAfee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “But this paints a much more dramatic picture of the horror of smoking. These are real people that are getting 10 years of life expectancy hacked off — and that’s just on average.”

The findings were part of research, published on Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, that looked at government data on more than 200,000 Americans who were followed starting in 1997. Similar studies that were done in the 1980s and the decades prior had allowed scientists to predict the impact of smoking on mortality. But since then many population trends have changed, and it was unclear whether smokers today fared differently from smokers decades ago.

Since the 1960s, the prevalence of smoking over all has declined, falling from about 40 percent to 20 percent. Today more than half of people that ever smoked have quit, allowing researchers to compare the effects of stopping at various ages.

Modern cigarettes contain less tar and medical advances have cut the rates of death from vascular disease drastically. But have smokers benefited from these advances?

Women in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s had lower rates of mortality from smoking than men. But it was largely unknown whether this was a biological difference or merely a matter of different habits: earlier generations of women smoked fewer cigarettes and tended to take up smoking at a later age than men.

Now that smoking habits among women today are similar to those of men, would mortality rates be the same as well?

“There was a big gap in our knowledge,” said Dr. McAfee, an author of the study and the director of the C.D.C.’s Office on Smoking and Public Health.

The new research showed that in fact women are no more protected from the consequences of smoking than men. The female smokers in the study represented the first generation of American women that generally began smoking early in life and continued the habit for decades, and the impact on life span was clear. The risk of death from smoking for these women was 50 percent higher than the risk reported for women in similar studies carried out in the 1980s.

“This sort of puts the nail in the coffin around the idea that women might somehow be different or that they suffer fewer effects of smoking,” Dr. McAfee said.

It also showed that differences between smokers and the population in general are becoming more and more stark. Over the last 20 years, advances in medicine and public health have improved life expectancy for the general public, but smokers have not benefited in the same way.

“If anything, this is accentuating the difference between being a smoker and a nonsmoker,” Dr. McAfee said.

The researchers had information about the participants’ smoking histories and other details about their health and backgrounds, including diet, alcohol consumption, education levels and weight and body fat. Using records from the National Death Index, they calculated their mortality rates over time.

People who had smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes were not classified as smokers. Those who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes but had not had one within five years of the time the data was collected were classified as former smokers.

Not surprisingly, the study showed that the earlier a person quit smoking, the greater the impact. People who quit between 25 and 34 years of age gained about 10 years of life compared to those who continued to smoke. But there were benefits at many ages. People who quit between 35 and 44 gained about nine years, and those who stopped between 45 and 59 gained about four to six years of life expectancy.

From a public health perspective, those numbers are striking, particularly when juxtaposed with preventive measures like blood pressure screenings, colorectal screenings and mammography, the effects of which on life expectancy are more often viewed in terms of days or months, Dr. McAfee said.

“These things are very important, but the size of the benefit pales in comparison to what you can get from stopping smoking,” he said. “The notion that you could add 10 years to your life by something as straightforward as quitting smoking is just mind boggling.”

Read More..

DealBook | The Trade: An Asset So Toxic They Called It ‘Nuclear Holocaust’

On March 16, 2007, Morgan Stanley employees working on one of the toxic assets that helped blow up the world economy discussed what to name it. Among the team members’ suggestions: “Subprime Meltdown,” “Hitman,” “Nuclear Holocaust” and “Mike Tyson’s Punchout,” as well a simple yet direct reference to a bag of excrement.

Ha ha. Those hilarious investment bankers.

Then they gave it its real name and sold it to a Chinese bank.

We are never going to have a full understanding of what bad behavior bankers engaged in in the years leading up to the financial crisis. The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission have failed to hold big wrongdoers to account.

We are left with what scraps we can get from those private lawsuits lucky enough to get over the high hurdles for document discovery. A case brought in a New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan against Morgan Stanley by a Taiwanese bank, which bought a piece of the same deal the Chinese bank did, has cleared that bar.

The results are explosive. Hundreds of pages of internal Morgan Stanley documents, released publicly last week, shed much new light on what bankers knew at the height of the housing bubble and what they did with that secret knowledge.

The lawsuit concerns a $500 million collateralized debt obligation called Stack 2006-1, created in the first half of 2006. Collections of mortgage-backed securities, C.D.O.’s were at the heart of the financial crisis.

But the documents suggest a pattern of behavior larger than this one deal: people across the bank understood that the American housing market was in trouble. They took advantage of that knowledge to create and then bet against securities and then also to unload garbage investments on unsuspecting buyers.

Morgan Stanley doesn’t see the narrative as the plaintiffs do. The firm is fighting the lawsuit, contending that the buyers were sophisticated clients and could have known what was going on in the subprime market. The C.D.O. documents disclosed, albeit obliquely, that Morgan Stanley might bet against the securities, a strategy known as shorting. The firm did not pick the assets going into the deal (though it was able to veto any assets). And any shorting of the deal was part of a larger array of trades, both long and short. Indeed, Morgan Stanley owned a big piece of Stack, in addition to its short bet.

Regarding the profane naming contest, Morgan Stanley said in a statement: “While the e-mail in question contains inappropriate language and reflects a poor attempt at humor, the Morgan Stanley employee who wrote it was responsible for documenting transactions. It was not his job or within his skill set to assess the state of the market or the credit quality of the transaction being discussed.”

Philip Blumberg, the Morgan Stanley lawyer who composed most of the names, meet the underside of a bus, courtesy of your employer.

Another Morgan Stanley employee sent an e-mail that same morning, suggesting that the deal be called “Hitman.” This might have been an attempt to manage up, because “Hitman” was the nickname of his boss, Jonathan Horowitz, who helped head the part of the group that oversaw mortgage-backed C.D.O.’s. Mr. Horowitz replied, “I like it.”

Both Mr. Blumberg and Mr. Horowitz, now at JPMorgan, declined to comment through representatives at their banks.

In February 2006, Morgan Stanley began putting together the Stack C.D.O. According to an internal presentation, Stack “represents attractive business for Morgan Stanley.”

Why? In addition to fees, another bullet point listed: “Ability to short up to $325MM of credits into the C.D.O.” In other words, Morgan Stanley could — and did — sell assets to the Stack C.D.O., intending to profit if the securities backed by those assets declined. The bank put on a $170 million bet against Stack, even as it was selling it.

In the end, of the $500 million of assets backing the deal, $415 million ended up worthless.

“While investors and taxpayers all over the world continue to choke on Wall Street’s toxic subprime products, to this day not a single major Wall Street executive has been held accountable for misconduct relating to those products,” said Jason C. Davis, a lawyer at Robbins Geller who is representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit. “They are generally untouchable, but we are pleased that the court in this case is ordering Morgan Stanley to turn over damning evidence, so that the jury will get to see what Morgan Stanley really knew about the troubled nature of its supposedly ‘higher-than-AAA’ quality product.”

Why might Morgan Stanley have bet against the deal? Did its traders develop a brilliant thesis by assessing the fundamentals of the housing market through careful analysis of the public data? The documents suggest something more troubling: bankers found out that the housing market was diseased from their colleagues down the hall.

Bankers were getting information from fellow employees conducting and receiving private assessments of the quality of the mortgages that the bank would purchase to back securities. These reports weren’t available to the public. It would be crucial information for trading in securities backed by those kinds of mortgages.

In one e-mail from Oct. 21, 2005, a Morgan Stanley employee warned a banker that the mortgages Morgan Stanley was buying from loan originators were troubled. “The real issue is that the loan requests do not make sense,” he wrote. As an example, he cited “a borrower that makes $12K a month as an operation manger (sic) of an unknown company — after research on my part I reveal it is a tarot reading house. Compound these issues with the fact that we are seeing what I would call a lot of this type of profile.”

In another e-mail from March 17, 2006, another Morgan Stanley employee wrote about a “deteriorating appraisal quality that is very flagrant.”

Two of the employees who received those e-mails joined an internal hedge fund, headed by Howard Hubler, that was formed only the next month, in April 2006. As recounted in Michael Lewis’s “The Big Short,” Mr. Hubler infamously bet against the subprime market on Morgan Stanley’s behalf, a fact that Morgan Stanley’s chief financial officer conceded in late 2007. Mr. Hubler’s group was supposed to be separate from the rest of Morgan Stanley, but the two bankers continued to receive similar information about the underlying market, according to a person briefed on the matter.

At no point did they receive material, nonpublic information, a Morgan Stanley spokesman says.

I struggle to see how the private assessments that the subprime market was imploding were immaterial.

Another of Morgan Stanley’s main defenses is that it couldn’t have thought the investment it sold to the Taiwanese was terrible because it, too, lost money on securities backed by subprime mortgages. As the Morgan Stanley spokesman put it, “This deal must be viewed in the context of a significant write-down for Morgan Stanley in 2007, when the firm recorded huge losses in its public securities filings related to other subprime C.D.O. positions.”

This is a common refrain offered by big banks like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns to absolve them of any responsibility.

But does losing money wipe away sin?

Yes, Mr. Hubler made his bets in what turned out to be a deeply disastrous way. As part of a complex array of trades, he bet against the middle slices of subprime mortgage C.D.O.’s. He bought the supposedly safe top parts. The income from the top slices helped offset the cost of betting against the middle slices. But when the market collapsed, the top slices — called “super senior” because they were supposedly safer than Triple A — didn’t hold their value, losing billions for Mr. Hubler and Morgan Stanley. Mr. Hubler did not respond to requests for comment.

So Morgan Stanley lost a great deal of money.

But let’s review what the documents suggest is the big picture.

In the fall of 2005, bank employees shared nonpublic assessments of how the subprime market was a house of tarot cards.

In February 2006, the bank began creating Stack in part so that it could bet against it.

In April 2006, the bank created its own internal hedge fund, led by Mr. Hubler, who shorted the subprime market. Among the traders in this internal shop were people who helped create Stack and other deals like it, and at least two employees who had access to the private due diligence reports.

Mr. Hubler’s group had no investment position in Stack, according to the person briefed on the matter, but it sure looks as if the bank saw what was coming and tried to position itself for a subprime market collapse.

Finally, by early 2007, the bank appeared to realize that the subprime market was faring even worse than it expected. Even the supposedly safe pieces of C.D.O.’s that it owned, including its piece of Stack, were facing losses. So Morgan Stanley bankers set to scouring the world to peddle as a safe and sound investment what its own employees were internally deriding.

Morgan Stanley declined to comment on whether it made money on its Stack investments over all. But it looks to have turned out well for the bank. In Stack, it managed to fob off a nuclear bomb to the Taiwanese bank.

Unfortunately for Morgan Stanley, it had so many other pieces of C.D.O.’s, so many nuclear warheads, that it couldn’t find nearly enough suckers around the world to buy them all.

And so when the real collapse came, Morgan Stanley was left with billions of dollars in losses.

That hardly seems exculpatory.


Read More..

Marijuana still a drug with no accepted medical use, court says









WASHINGTON — Marijuana will continue to be considered a highly dangerous drug under federal law with no accepted medical uses, after a U.S. appeals court Tuesday refused to order a change in the government's 40-year-old drug classification schedule.

The decision keeps in place an odd legal split over marijuana, a drug deemed to be as dangerous as heroin and worse than methamphetamine by federal authorities, but one that has been legalized for medical use by voters or legislators in 20 states and the District of Columbia.

A marijuana advocacy group went to court, arguing that federal officials had a duty to reexamine the medical evidence and reclassify marijuana as a drug that has clear benefits for those who are suffering and in pain. Joe Elford, counsel for Americans for Safe Access, said federal drug officials had a bias against marijuana that caused them to ignore its benefits and to exaggerate its dangers.

But three judges said they had a duty to defer to the judgment of federal health experts who had concluded they needed more evidence before reclassifying marijuana.

"To establish accepted medical use, the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies [with] a large number of patients. To date, such studies have not been performed," the Drug Enforcement Administration said in defense of its decision. The passage was quoted in Tuesday's opinion.

Judge Harry Edwards, writing for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, said the judges did not dispute that "marijuana could have some medical benefits." Instead, he said, they were not willing to overrule the DEA because they had not seen large "well-controlled studies" that proved the medical value of marijuana.

"We're disappointed, but not surprised," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access. She said more than 1 million patients used marijuana as medicine across the nation.

She said the group would appeal to the Supreme Court. "We are also turning our attention to Congress. It is time we had a conversation about marijuana at the federal level," she said.

In December, President Obama and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said they were prepared to reconsider federal law that makes possession of small amounts of marijuana a crime. They were reacting to voters in Colorado and Washington who opted to permit recreational users to have an ounce of marijuana at home.

"So, what we're going to need to have is a conversation about how do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that it's legal," Obama told ABC News.

Leahy said he would consider legislative proposals that could relax federal enforcement against small amounts of marijuana.

david.savage@latimes.com



Read More..

Google Ad Bleeding Slows as Larry Page Dismisses Mobile Fears



Investors like what they’re hearing from Google, despite a sickly-sounding Larry Page. The Google CEO argued on Tuesday’s earnings call that mobile won’t hinder his company’s core ad business because distinctions between devices are becoming moot.


After-hours traders sent Google shares up more than 5 percent late Tuesday afternoon after the company beat Wall Street expectations for the quarter.


Money poured into Google’s core advertising business as holiday shoppers hunted for gifts. Google Chief Business Officer Nikesh Arora said Google’s top 25 advertisers are spending an average of $150 million per year. Election spending on Google quintupled in 2012 compared to four years earlier, Arora said during the call, adding that in 9 of 11 “top Senate races … the candidate who spent more with Google was elected.” He also said that Psy, whose “Gagnam Style” video topped 1 billion views on YouTube, made $8 million on YouTube advertising alone.


But the most important number for the quarter may be the slowing decline in the “cost-per-click” for ads served on Google and on sites on its ad network. Cost-per-click rates fell by double-digit percentages each of the first three quarters of Google’s 2012 fiscal year. This past quarter, the drop shrank to a six-percent decline compared to the same period last year, while the cost-per-click actually rose by 2 percent since the last quarter.


Analysts have blamed the steep plunge in the value of Google’s ads, paradoxically, on the company’s success at driving the smartphone revolution. Mobile ads simply aren’t worth as much on smartphones, since users just don’t respond to them as much. Android, the world’s most popular smartphone operating system, puts Google’s ad-supported ecosystem into more hands, but at the same time that spread is diluting those ads’ value.


Arora said on the call that Google has implemented a new policy to reduce the number of ads displayed. He and Page said the decision was driven by a desire to improve the user experience by cutting back on too many ads. But the move would also seem to have the effect of cutting back on ad inventory, which could help shore up the value of individual ads even as more ads are served overall.


As for Page, he said he believes that dollars for mobile ads could as likely as not top the spending on desktop. He pointed to handsets like Google’s own Nexus 4 and other “modern” smartphones that he said render the distinctions among platforms and form factors irrelevant.


“We should be designing for the kind of mobile phones that we have right now that are state of the art,” Page said. “Those experiences should work on all devices pretty well.”


If that comes to pass, then the logical conclusion to draw would be that users would respond to ads in a similar way, regardless of what device they’re using. But Page also wasn’t willing to stake too much on predicting the future, calling the spread of mobile technology the most rapid period of technological change since the dawn of the personal computer.


“We live in uncharted territory,” he said.


Read More..

“Zero Dark Thirty” heads to Europe: will torture controversy follow?






LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – Best Picture Oscar nominee “Zero Dark Thirty” rolls out in several Western European countries starting Wednesday, absent – at least for now – the firestorm of criticism that has accompanied its U.S. release.


The movie has been a lightning rod for detractors in the U.S. over its perceived endorsement of torture, an allegation that director Kathryn Bigelow and Sony executives have repeatedly denied.






“Overall, I believe Europeans are far less ambiguous than Americans when it comes to the use of torture,” Bruce Nash of box-office tracking service TheNumbers told TheWrap.


“To the extent that the film is perceived as pro-torture — whether it is or not, and I don’t believe it is — if that somehow became how the film is defined, that would hurt it at the box office,” Nash said. “But I don’t think that’s the case.”


Bigelow, screenwriter Marc Boal and several others involved with the picture have been in Europe for the past two weeks to promote the film. Boal told the New York Times that interviewers in France seemed to regard the torture issue as belonging to the Americans, and in fact appreciated the film’s head-on approach.


Indeed, the film begins its foreign run with a lot of momentum. The dark thriller about the hunt for Osama bin Laden was No. 1 in its first week of wide release on January 11 and has finished a strong second for the past two weeks.


Of course, the publicity surrounding the torture issue hasn’t hurt it at the box office in the U.S. The domestic haul for “Zero Dark Thirty” to this point is nearly $ 57 million, ahead of pre-release projections and likely heading for $ 100 million.


The film’s five Oscar nominations and the critical acclaim it has received have helped, too, but even Sony has acknowledged the flood of news stories raised the film’s profile.


Universal will be handling the film’s release in most countries in Western Europe, after buying rights to those territories from Megan Ellison’s Annapurna Pictures, which financed it and cut distribution deals territory by territory.


It will open in France and Switzerland on Wednesday and in the U.K and Finland on Friday. Its debut in Germany will be on January 31, and Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Norway and South Africa will follow in February. Regional distributors will handle the film’s February releases in Russia and Latin America, and the Annapurna is still considering a China run.


“Zero Dark Thirty” is one of three Best Picture Oscar nominees that is currently hitting overseas theaters with a distributor different than the one that handled its U.S.release.


Sony, which along with the Weinstein Company co-financed “Django Unchained,” is overseeing the foreign release of Quentin Tarantino’s slave saga. It opened last weekend and took in $ 48 million from 54 overseas markets.


DreamWorks’ “Lincoln,” distributed by Disney in North America, debuted in Spain and Mexico this past weekend via Fox.


With an explanatory preamble approved by director Steven Spielberg added, “Lincoln” opened to $ 2.3 million on 344 screens in Spain and to $ 729,000 on 259 screens in Mexico. “Lincoln” goes much wider next weekend, when it opens in 19 markets including Brazil, Germany, Italy, Russia and the U.K..


As for the torture controversy that accompanied “Zero Dark Thirty’s” U.S. release, it doesn’t seem to have caused the slightest ripple.


Indeed, the fact that torture has been used in the war against terror has been seen as a reality in Europe for some time.


In December, Europe’s highest court, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, concluded that techniques used routinely by the Bush-era CIA in connection with its extraordinary-renditions program constituted torture.


If torture does not become an issue, The Numbers’ Nash said it should do solid business. He pointed out that other U.S. films about the war on terror have done pretty well overseas. In 2006, “United 93″ made $ 31 million domestically and nearly $ 45 million overseas. Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” did $ 70 million in the U.S. and went to make $ 92 million abroad that same year.


Bigelow’s last movie, “The Hurt Locker,’” was about a U.S. bomb squad in the Iraq war, and it nearly doubled its $ 17 million domestic take, with $ 32 million from abroad in 2009. The bulk of that foreign run came after its surprise victory over “Avatar” for the Best Picture Oscar, however.


This weekend’s U.K. and France debuts will be telling, but Universal quietly opened “Zero Dark Thirty” on just 250 screens in Spain on January 4. With a minimum of criticism, politicians’ ire or public furor, the movie has taken in nearly $ 4 million over three weekends.


Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News





Title Post: “Zero Dark Thirty” heads to Europe: will torture controversy follow?
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/zero-dark-thirty-heads-to-europe-will-torture-controversy-follow/
Link To Post : “Zero Dark Thirty” heads to Europe: will torture controversy follow?
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment




Read More..

Medicaid Patients Could Face Higher Fees Under a Proposed Federal Policy





WASHINGTON — Millions of low-income people could be required to pay more for health care under a proposed federal policy that would give states more freedom to impose co-payments and other charges on Medicaid patients.




Hoping to persuade states to expand Medicaid, the Obama administration said state Medicaid officials could charge higher co-payments and premiums for doctors’ services, prescription drugs and certain types of hospital care, including the “nonemergency use” of emergency rooms. State officials have long asked for more leeway to impose such charges.


The 2010 health care law extended Medicaid to many childless adults and others who were previously ineligible. The Supreme Court said the expansion of Medicaid was an option for states, not a requirement as Congress had intended. The administration has been trying to persuade states to take the option, emphasizing that they can reconfigure Medicaid to hold down their costs and “promote the most effective use of services.”


In the proposed rule published Tuesday in the Federal Register, the administration said it was simplifying a complex, confusing array of standards that limit states’ ability to charge Medicaid beneficiaries. Under the proposal, a family of three with annual income of $30,000 could be required to pay $1,500 in premiums and co-payments.


As if to emphasize the latitude given to states, the administration used this heading for part of the new rule: “Higher Cost Sharing Permitted for Individuals With Incomes Above 100 Percent of the Federal Poverty Level” (that is, $19,090 for a family of three).


Barbara K. Tomar, director of federal affairs at the American College of Emergency Physicians, said the administration had not adequately defined the “nonemergency services” for which low-income people could be required to pay. In many cases, she said, patients legitimately believe they need emergency care, but the final diagnosis does not bear that out.


“This is just a way to reduce payments to physicians and hospitals” from the government, Ms. Tomar said.


With patients paying more, the federal government and states would pay less than they otherwise would. Medicaid covers 60 million people, and at least 11 million more are expected to qualify under the 2010 law. The federal government pays more than half of Medicaid costs and will pay a much larger share for those who become eligible under the law.


In the proposed rule, the administration said it had discovered several potential problems in its efforts to carry out the law.


First, it said, it has not found a reliable, comprehensive and up-to-date source of information about whether people have employer-sponsored health insurance. The government needs such information to decide whether low- and middle-income people can obtain federal subsidies for private insurance.


The subsidies can be used to buy coverage in competitive marketplaces known as insurance exchanges. Under the law, people can start enrolling in October for coverage that starts in January 2014, when most Americans will be required to have health insurance. People who have access to affordable coverage from employers will generally be ineligible for subsidies.


In applying for subsidies, people must report any employer-sponsored insurance they have. But the administration said it could be difficult to verify this information because the main sources of data reflect only “whether an individual is employed and with which employer, and not whether the employer provides health insurance.”


Since passage of the health care law, the administration has often said that people seeking insurance would use a single streamlined application for Medicaid and the subsidies for private coverage. Moreover, the state Medicaid agency and the exchange are supposed to share data and issue a “combined eligibility notice” for all types of assistance.


But the administration said this requirement would be delayed to Jan. 1, 2015, because more time was needed to establish electronic links between Medicaid and the exchanges.


Leonardo D. Cuello, who represents Medicaid beneficiaries as a lawyer at the National Health Law Program, expressed concern.


“Under the proposed rule,” Mr. Cuello said, “many people will be funneled into health insurance exchanges even though they have special needs that are better met in Medicaid. And if you asked the right questions, you would find out that they are eligible for Medicaid.”


The federal government will have the primary responsibility for running exchanges in more than half the states. About 20 states are expected to expand Medicaid; governors in other states are opposed or uncommitted.


The proposed rule allows hospitals to decide, “on the basis of preliminary information,” whether a person is eligible for Medicaid. States must provide immediate temporary coverage to people who appear eligible.


Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said this could be a boon to low-income people. “Currently,” he said, “only children and pregnant women are presumed eligible for inpatient admissions under Medicaid in New York.”


The public has until Feb. 13 to comment on the proposed rule. Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov.


Read More..