Dear member of the mobilebroadband group,
For enhancing our value from this group,
See the Votings and vote for yourself:
http://tech.
Thanks
Eli Orr
ZTE is planning to launch the solar powered phone that would be operating on the Android platform.
Probably, the handset will be al set with the rear-mounted solar panels.
ZTE's current solar panels are capable of charging the phone for 15 minutes of call time for each hour in the sun.
The launch for the phone is scheduled in Q2 2010. The handset price is expected to be approximately $40.
http://tech.
Yves Smith has written the blog Naked Capitalism since 2006. She has spent more than 25 years in the financial services industry and currently is head of Aurora Advisors, a management consulting firm.
The size of the Goldman bonuses masks a more important issue, namely that the firm was in very dire shape not long ago and was saved from collapse by official intervention, not merely the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but a host of special facilities created by the Fed to direct liquidity to the very markets that firms like Goldman are deeply exposed to and depend upon for their business to be viable, let alone profitable.
Warren Buffet may have gotten a good deal when he pumped capital into Goldman, but the public didn't.
Goldman was in such acute distress that, as The Financial Times reports today, Goldman senior officers sold nearly $700 million of equity from when Lehman failed through April, with the heaviest selling occurring when the firm was on TARP life support and while it was selling stock to the public. Put more bluntly, the executives were being cashed out by outside money.
Lest you have any doubts, the insiders sold far more shares than in the comparable period the year prior, when the firm's stock was priced much higher. Goldman also received a capital injection from Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway shortly prior to the TARP funding. Needless to say, the terms Buffett got were vastly superior to the ones the taxpayer received.
The logic of these programs is that the big capital markets players have become such crucial parts of the economic infrastructure that they cannot be permitted to fail. Yet they continue to enjoy a grossly asymmetric deal, socialized losses versus privatized gains. The stunning magnitude of the Goldman bonuses shows whom this arrangement benefits, not the public at large, but a privileged few. 
* JULY 14, 2009
CIA Plan Envisioned Hit Teams Killing al Qaeda Leaders
By SIOBHAN GORMAN
WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative axed by Director Leon Panetta examined how to assassinate members of al Qaeda with hit teams on the ground, according to current and former national-security officials familiar with the matter.
The goal was to assemble teams of CIA and special-operations forces "and put bullets in [the al Qaeda leaders'] heads," one former intelligence official said.
The plan was never carried out, and Mr. Panetta canceled the effort on the day he learned of it, June 23. The next day, he alerted Congress, which didn't know about the plan.
"The agency hasn't discussed publicly the nature of the effort, which remains classified," said agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday the effort stemmed from a presidential order dated September 2001 that directed the CIA to find ways to kill or capture al Qaeda leaders.
The revelation has intensified a growing battle between the executive branch and Congress over the conduct of the CIA and U.S. intelligence operations.
Democrats in Congress are calling for an investigation into whether or not it was properly briefed on the matter. Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence panel, said the thrust of the plan should be resurrected. "The general concept in the plan is one that should be explored somewhere. Whether it's a modification of this plan or some related plan," he said in an interview.
Congress frequently feuded with the Bush administration over intelligence matters. Democrats expected that tension would abate under the Obama administration, but lawmakers have frequently found themselves at odds with President Barack Obama's decisions to continue or not investigate controversial intelligence policies initiated under President George W. Bush.
The tug-of-war will enter a new round as soon as this week, when the House is expected to take up a bill that would expand congressional oversight of intelligence activities, especially of covert-action programs. The White House has said it would veto the bill if passed.
Details of how CIA could carry out proposals for an al Qaeda hit team remain sketchy, and the difficulty of executing such a plan likely explains why it periodically surfaced in internal briefings over eight years but never came to fruition.
The White House has evaluated whether or not to declassify information on a case-by-case basis, making any pattern hard to discern. It released legal memos on the CIA's interrogation program, but declined to make public photos that allegedly documented detainee abuse.
Had it become fully developed, the CIA's aborted plan would have been a covert-action program. At the outset, the potential operation wouldn't have been limited to particular countries. The use of hit teams was in accordance with the authority granted by the 2001 order, said a former national-security official familiar with it.
In the most recent iteration of the project, top CIA leaders instructed officers involved to narrow its focus and report the plans to Congress if they reached a critical point where moving forward would involve activities that, if discovered, could embarrass the U.S., according to a former senior intelligence official.
Targeted killing of terrorists is prohibited by presidential orders banning assassinations that date back to the Ford administration. But the president can waive that order, said Vicki Divoll, a former CIA counsel, because there is no specific federal law that bans the practice.
There's also no legal difference, she said, between killing al Qaeda targets with a hit team or with an unmanned drone, because the "intent to kill a targeted person" defines an assassination.
The CIA has recently opted to step up its use of Predator and Reaper drones to kill al Qaeda and related militants in Pakistan's tribal areas. That program is done in consultation with Pakistani officials and is less risky than sending in individuals, because it doesn't involve U.S. personnel on the ground.
One official with direct knowledge of the secret program said that assassination teams could be more effective than taking out al Qaeda leaders with drone-fired missiles. "We're talking about the difference between two feet and 50,000 feet," said one official with direct knowledge of the program. "Do you want the collateral damage of 50,000 feet or two?"
Mr. Panetta's decision to kill the assassination initiative and notify Congress has reignited a long-running battle over how involved lawmakers should be in overseeing the agency's activities. Democratic lawmakers credit the director for telling them about the program, but the party's House members are now preparing to investigate the program. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers should "take whatever actions they believe are necessary" to get to the bottom of the matter.
The battle has also has put him in a tough spot. His recent moves to stand up for the agency in disputes with the director of national intelligence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who recently accused the agency of "lying all the time" -- have bolstered his support within the agency, veterans said. But lawmakers' rapid-fire calls to investigate Bush-era efforts like the secret assassination program threaten to undermine that support.
These emerging probes, coupled with discussion of a possible attorney general investigation of the CIA's controversial interrogation program and the recent declassification of interrogation documents, are rattling nerves at CIA, agency veterans say.
The flap with Congress over the secret program is already reverberating through the CIA's Langley, Va., headquarters, said one former senior intelligence official who is in regular contact with former colleagues.
"This is really hitting everyone hard," the former official said. "They've expressed concern that nobody's got their back,"
Even after Mr. Obama promised to cover legal fees for any officials caught up in lawsuits over the interrogation program, the former official said, "people who shouldn't have to are asking for advice on lawyers."
Another U.S. intelligence officer countered that most officers discount the exchanges as politics, "apply an appropriate discount factor to the drama" and find it "only mildly annoying."
Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@
The heads are certainly rolling, just not the ones who caused the crisis in the first place, namely the Goldman alumni. But that is how revolutions typically work, especially when they are pushed to happen.
NO! you don't suppose.....
D'man
--- In MediaValue@yahoogro
>
>
> Goldman Reports Big Profit, Beating Forecasts By GRAHAM BOWLEY
> <http://topics.
> Comfortably beating analysts' forecasts, Goldman Sachs
> <http://topics.
> $3.44 billion, or $4.93 a share, the bank announced on Tuesday.
>
> The results continue a robust turnaround for the firm since it rode out
> the final tumultuous months of 2008 with the help of a federal rescue.
> They come just one month after it paid back its $10 billion in federal
> aid.
>
> Goldman's profit was lifted by record quarterly revenues of $6.8
> billion in its fixed income, currency and commodities unit, where
> mortgage and other credit instruments are traded, the bank said in a
> statement. Its equities business also generated record net revenues, it
> said.
>
> "While markets remain fragile and we recognize the challenges the
> broader economy faces, our second-quarter results reflected the
> combination of improving financial market conditions and a deep and
> diverse client franchise," Lloyd C. Blankfein
> <http://topics.
> in a release. Goldman was humbled along with the rest of Wall Street
> last year when the financial markets froze.
>
> As a result, it lost money in the final quarter of 2008, a rarity for
> the bank.
>
> But since then it has rebounded strongly, posting robust profits in the
> first quarter on the back of trading revenues and again in the latest
> quarter.
>
> Many analysts are likely to welcome the news as another sign that the
> financial industry is stabilizing, and the Goldman results will probably
> set a positive tone for a slew of other bank results expected in the
> coming week.
>
> But they are also raising questions about how Goldman's rapid return
> to making strong profits will be perceived by lawmakers and taxpayers
> who helped Goldman with the multibillion-
> the nation's financial industry was shaken to its foundations.
>
> Goldman's trading revenues have been helped by the fact that several
> of its rivals have gone out of business following the credit crisis
> <http://topics.
> market share. It has also been able to increase it fees.
>
>
> Copyright 2009
> <http://www.nytimes.
> York Times Company <http://www.nytco.
>
Comfortably beating analysts' forecasts, Goldman Sachs earned second-quarter profits of $3.44 billion, or $4.93 a share, the bank announced on Tuesday.
The results continue a robust turnaround for the firm since it rode out the final tumultuous months of 2008 with the help of a federal rescue. They come just one month after it paid back its $10 billion in federal aid.
Goldman's profit was lifted by record quarterly revenues of $6.8 billion in its fixed income, currency and commodities unit, where mortgage and other credit instruments are traded, the bank said in a statement. Its equities business also generated record net revenues, it said.
"While markets remain fragile and we recognize the challenges the broader economy faces, our second-quarter results reflected the combination of improving financial market conditions and a deep and diverse client franchise," Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman's chief executive, said in a release. Goldman was humbled along with the rest of Wall Street last year when the financial markets froze.
As a result, it lost money in the final quarter of 2008, a rarity for the bank.
But since then it has rebounded strongly, posting robust profits in the first quarter on the back of trading revenues and again in the latest quarter.
Many analysts are likely to welcome the news as another sign that the financial industry is stabilizing, and the Goldman results will probably set a positive tone for a slew of other bank results expected in the coming week.
But they are also raising questions about how Goldman's rapid return to making strong profits will be perceived by lawmakers and taxpayers who helped Goldman with the multibillion-
Goldman's trading revenues have been helped by the fact that several of its rivals have gone out of business following the credit crisis, a fact that has added to its market share. It has also been able to increase it fees.
CIT survival ensnared in regulatory battle
July 13, 2009. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The survival of CIT Group Inc (NYSE:CIT - News), a key source of financing for thousands of small and medium-sized companies, became ensnared in disagreements between regulators in Washington on Monday.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which insures deposits at U.S. banks, opposed an attempt by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to rescue the lender by granting it access to a government debt-guarantee program, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The prices of CIT shares and bonds tumbled as investors worried the commercial lender would not be able to meet its obligations to bondholders, perhaps pushing the company into bankruptcy and disrupting the financing on which its corporate customers depend.
CIT's difficulties are "going to make funding more expensive all around," said Dan Brown, chief economist for Euler Hermes, a unit of insurer Allianz SE (XETRA:ALVG.
The lender's failure would be the biggest collapse of a financial firm since regulators seized Washington Mutual Inc in September.
It is not the first time in recent months that there has been a disagreement between the FDIC and the Treasury and Federal Reserve. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, who is well-liked by key congressional leaders, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have battled over policy and turf, according to numerous reports.
FDIC is wary of granting CIT access to its debt program partly because it is not satisfied with the lender's collateral, the source said.
Unlike other government aid programs, the debt guarantee facility does not rely on taxpayer money. The FDIC would have to absorb any losses that result from the facility, and would have to recoup the funds by taxing the bank industry.
As a result, the Treasury and Fed are exploring other ways to provide relief to CIT, the source said, speaking anonymously because the government discussions have been private.
Speaking on a trip to Britain, Geithner said he was confident the government would be able to deal with CIT.
But the possibility of government aid for CIT -- which became a bank holding company last year to qualify for $2.33 billion of bailout funds -- would also raise questions for lawmakers and taxpayers wondering just how far the government should go to save struggling companies. Much of CIT's business could be taken on by other lenders such as JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYSE:JPM - News) and Deutsche Bank AG (XETRA:DBKGN.
CIT has hired top law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP to explore a possible bankruptcy filing (nBNG465972)
RATING DOWNGRADES
A delay in getting approval for the debt-guarantee program -- which CIT applied for in January -- and tight credit markets have caused a liquidity crunch for the company. It has lost close to $3.3 billion since the end of 2007 and says it faces a $10 billion funding gap in the year to March 31, 2010.
Moody's cut CIT's senior unsecured credit rating four notches on Monday, to B3 from Ba2, citing "growing concerns with CIT's liquidity position and prospects for survival of the franchise."
Later on Monday, Standard & Poor's downgraded CIT by one notch to CCC-plus from BB-minus, noting in a statement that if the company does not get access to the FDIC's debt program or is unable to obtain liquidity elsewhere, "We believe that it might attempt to restructure its debt, perhaps in bankruptcy or through an exchange offer we would view as distressed."
Shares of CIT, which lately has provided debtor-in-possessio
Analysts warned that the company could face a rush from borrowers to draw down credit lines.
"The likelihood of borrowers drawing down on their lines has definitely increased," said David Chiaverini, analyst with BMO Capital Markets in New York.
CAPITAL RAISING
To boost liquidity, CIT said it was discussing a transfer of assets such as its vendor finance and trade finance businesses into its CIT Bank unit by obtaining a waiver of a Federal Reserve rule that limits such transactions. This is one of the possibilities the Treasury and Fed are exploring, according to the source.
The lender could also step up attempts to sell assets, such as its $4.5 billion railcar leasing unit, analysts said. CIT shopped the railcar unit last year for several months before shelving the plan after its capital position improved and commercial lender GATX Corp (NYSE:GMT - News), which had been seen as a potential buyer, offered more than $3 billion for a similar business owned by General Electric Co (NYSE:GE - News).
Quick asset sales now, however, are unlikely to fetch top prices without government support in the form of either access to the FDIC's program or a waiver to transfer assets to its bank. Asset sales, even at unattractive prices, are CIT's best hope for improving its capital position, analysts said.
"It's virtually impossible for them to attract outside capital in either equity or debt form at this juncture," said David Havens, a managing director in credit trading at Hexagon Securities in New York.
(Additional reporting by Chelsea Emery in New York and Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman, John Wallace and Steve Orlofsky)
